Delhi District Court
State vs Appolo Hospital on 18 November, 2025
MCD CHL 4/2019
STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL
(Civil Lines)
IN THE COURT OF GOWRI REGHUNATH : JMFC-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
MCD CHL 4/2019
STATE Vs. APOLLO HOSPITAL
(Civil Lines)
1. Case No. of the case : 4/2019
2. The date of offence : 16.04.2015
3. The name of the accused : Apollo Hospital
Enterprises Ltd.
(presently operating
in the name of
Apollo Pharmacy,
represented through
AR Sh. Jaywardhan
Binjola)
4. The offence complained : u/s 417/430/461 of
DMC Act
5. The plea of the accused : Not guilty
6. Date of institution of the case : 21.04.2015
7. Date of reserving the : 01.11.2025
order
8. The date of order : 18.11.2025
9. The final order : Convicted u/s
417/461 DMC Act,
and acquitted u/s
430 DMC Act.
Page No. 1 of 13
MCD CHL 4/2019
STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL
(Civil Lines)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall dispose of challan number 44914 dated 16.04.2015 issued by MCD Civil Lines zone against Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. (presently operating in the name of Apollo Pharmacy) under Section 417/430/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the DMC Act).
2. In brief, the case against the accused company is that on the date of the incident, it was found running a shop at No.1993, Outer Link, Kingsway Camp, Delhi carrying out trade involving the sale or storage of cosmetic or plastic goods without a municipal license.
3. The challan was sent to court on 21.04.2015, thereafter, cognizance was taken of the offences stated in the challan. The authorized representative (AR) of the accused exercised the option to contest the challan, and accordingly further proceedings were conducted.
4. Vide order dated 07.09.2016, the Ld. predecessor of this court noted that there is no specific entry regarding sale or storage of 'cosmetic goods' under Schedule 11 of the DMC Act, therefore notice was framed against the accused through its AR only qua the offence of storage of 'plastic goods' which is punishable under Section 417/430/461 of the DMC Act.
Complainant Evidence
5. During the stage of complainant evidence, the MCD examined two witnesses namely Licensing Inspector Manoj Vats (CW-1) who proved the challan Ex. CW-1/A (colly) and DLO Page No. 2 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) AK Aggarwal (CW-2). Both witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Statement of Accused
6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 313 CrPC, in which all the incriminating evidence filed on record was put to him. The AR of the accused admitted that a municipal license was not procured by the accused company, as it was not storing any plastic goods. It was further stated that the shop in question is a pharmacy holding a valid license from the Drugs Control Department as it sells medicines and some cosmetic items. He stated that the challan was issued wrongly as their shop did not require a municipal license as they were not doing any trade which is licensable under the regime of DMC Act.
Defence Evidence
7. As the accused opted to lead evidence in defence, the AR of the accused Jaywardhan Binjola was examined as DW-1. During evidence, he produced the license retention letter issued to the accused, and licenses issued by the Drugs Control Department, and the license for selling food items issued by the Department of Food Safety. The said licenses were exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1- Ex. DW-1/4 respectively. Thereafter, he was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the MCD.
Final Arguments
8. During final arguments, Ld. Counsel for MCD argued that the case against the accused has been duly proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the oral evidence of the Licensing Inspector. It was contended that based on the evidence, it was proved that Page No. 3 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) the accused company was storing various articles made of plastic, such as milk bottles, toothbrushes, cleaning brushes, teethers, etc. without the requisite municipal license. Ld. Counsel for MCD relied on Section 417 read with entry no. 76 of Part-II of the Schedule 11 to the DMC Act, which states that plastic goods cannot be stored in any premises without a municipal license. It was further argued that the AR of the accused admitted during defence evidence that these articles were kept in their store without a municipal license. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be convicted. To support the arguments, Ld. Counsel for MCD placed reliance on the judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by Ld. MM-03 (NI Act), South District in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Appollo Pharmacy, challan no. 275/2024, where the accused was convicted of the same offences under a challan issued for a different shop.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused placed reliance on another judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by passed by Ld. MM-03 (NI Act), South District in SDMC v. M/s Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., challan no. 36580 in which the accused was acquitted of the said offences in a similar challan. It was vehemently contended that the challan was issued incorrectly in respect of the shop, as no MCD license is required by law for the articles being sold in the shop in question.
10. Firstly, it was argued that the accused company operates a pharmacy and sells medicines and cosmetics in the said shop. It was contended that the accused company is already in possession of a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in respect of the medicines and cosmetics being sold in the shop and a license issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of Page No. 4 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) India (FSSAI) in respect of the food products being sold in the said shop. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that it could not have been the intention of the law to require multiple licenses for the same trade, therefore the present challan was issued without any legal basis.
11. Secondly, it was argued that the accused company merely deals with the 'sale' of some plastic goods, whereas, the case of the MCD is that the accused was 'storing' plastic goods. It was pointed out that as per Section 417 read with Schedule 11, only 'storage' is licensable, not sale. It was argued that merely keeping small quantities of plastic goods for the limited purpose of sale does not require a license as per the relevant provisions of the DMC Act.
12. Thirdly, it was contended that the MCD has failed to adduce any evidence in the form of photographs or an inventory showing the quantity and description of plastic goods allegedly stored in the premises. It was argued that even the oral testimony of the Licensing Inspector was not reliable as it suffered from crucial omissions. It was also pointed out that in the absence of any evidence as to the quantity of goods being stored in the premises, the case of the MCD is bound to fail as the public notice dated 19.02.1983 issued by the Commissioner, MCD prescribes that only if storage is beyond certain aggregate quantity prescribed therein, is the trade subject to a license in terms of Section 417 DMC Act. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted.
Page No. 5 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) Analysis
13. Before delving into the exercise of appreciation of evidence, it would be appropriate to revisit the relevant provisions of the DMC Act-
Section 417 Premises not to be used for certain purposes without licence.
1) No person shall use or permit to be used any premises for any of the following purposes without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Commissioner in this behalf, namely:--
(a) any of the purposes specified in Part I of the Eleventh Schedule;
(b) any purpose which is, in the opinion of the Commissioner dangerous to life, health or property or likely to create a nuisance;
(c) keeping horses, cattle or other quadruped animals or birds for transportation, sale or hire or for sale of the produce thereof; or
(d) storing any of the articles specified in Part II of the Eleventh Schedule except for domestic use of any those article's:
Provided that the Corporation may declare that premises in which the aggregate quantity of articles stored for sale does not exceed such quantity as may be prescribed by bye-laws in respect of any such articles shall be exempted from the operation of clause (d).
(2) In prescribing the terms of a licence granted under this section for the use of premises as mills or iron yards or for similar purposes the Commissioner may, when he thinks fit, require the licensee to provide a space or passage within the premises for carts for loading and unloading purposes.
(3) The Corporation shall fix a scale of fees to be paid in respect of premises licensed under subsection(1) Section 430. Signature, conditions, duration, suspension, revocation, etc., of licences and written permissions. The relevant sub-section is reproduced herein;Page No. 6 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019
STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) (5) Every grantee of any licence or written permission granted under this Act shall at all reasonable times, while such licence or written permission remains in force, if so required by the Commissioner or the authority by whom it was granted, produce such licence or written permission.
Section 461 Punishment for certain offences. [(1)] Whoever--
(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions of this Act mentioned in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Schedule; or
(b) fails to comply with any order or direction lawfully given to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the said sections, sub- sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions, shall be punishable--
(i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that behalf third column of the said Table or with both; and
(ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the fourth column of that Table for every day during which such contravention or failure continues after conviction for the first such contravention or failure.
14. To prove the offence under Section 417 of the DMC Act, the MCD has to firstly prove that the accused was using a premises for any purpose specified in Part-I of Schedule 11, or for any purpose which is in the opinion of the Commissioner dangerous to life, health or property, or for the purpose of storing any article in Part-II of Schedule 11. Further, it must be proved that such usage or storage was without a license, or in contravention of the terms of the license granted by the Commissioner.
Page No. 7 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines)
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bahadur Singh v. MCD, Civil Writ 789 of 1969, explained the policy behind the aforementioned provision while upholding the constitutionality of Section 417 DMC Act. The relevant extract from the judgment is reproduced herein.
"The whole object underlying the enactment of Section 417 (read with Schedule 11) is to prohibit the right of carrying on certain trades or storing of certain goods in any premises without a license from the corporation. The purpose underlying the placing of these restrictions is to safeguard the life, health and property of the public. For instance, a person may like to store carbide of calcium, which is a highly inflammable substance in a premises located in the heart of the city. Such a storage may be harmful and dangerous to the life, health, or property of the residence of that locality. Section 417 read with Part II of the Schedule 11, prohibits the storage of carbide of calcium in any premises without a license."
16. Therefore, the requirement of obtaining a license in respect of the trades specified in Schedule 11 is part of the regulatory mechanism of the MCD to safeguard life, health, and property of the public. Part-II of the Schedule 11 provides a list of articles that may not be stored in any premises without a license in terms of Section 417. Perusal of the list reveals that it largely consists of articles that are combustible in nature. Plastic and plastic goods, also being combustible articles are found in entry no. 76 of the Schedule. It is the case of the MCD that the accused company was storing plastic goods in the shop in question without a municipal license.
17. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the accused did not possess a municipal license in respect of the shop in question. The dispute is purely with respect to whether the Page No. 8 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) accused company was using the premises for any of the purposes which are licensable in terms of Section 417 read with the Schedule 11 of the DMC Act.
18. Here, it would be relevant to point out that the judgment relied upon by the accused passed in MCD Challan no. 36580 dated 12.08.2015 does not apply to the facts of the present case as the same dealt with a challan issued against a shop for sale of cosmetics. In the present case, notice has not been framed against the accused for the act of sale of cosmetics, but merely for the storage of plastic goods.
19. Coming to the evidence on this point, the MCD has primarily relied on the oral testimony of the Licensing Inspector who was examined as CW-1. The credibility of CW-1 has been questioned by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the grounds that his testimony makes it amply clear that he did not carry out an inspection of the shop properly, as he failed to recall crucial details such as the number of times he visited the shop, the nature of sign board affixed at the entrance of the shop, and whether there was a license issued by the Drugs Control Department at the shop. It was further argued, that the testimony is also not supported by any photographic evidence, and therefore the evidence of CW-1 is unreliable.
20. Consideration of the judicial record reveals that while the challan was issued in the year 2015, the licensing inspector was examined as a witness only in the year 2024, i.e. after a span of nine years. Therefore, it is natural that the memory of the witness would have faded with the passage of time. It is a well-settled principle of evidence law that minor omissions which do not go to the root of the matter do not make a witness wholly unreliable.
Page No. 9 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) In the present case, none of the omissions in the testimony of CW-1 can be said to be material. CW-1 has been consistent in his testimony about the material facts of the case, and stated that plastic goods such as milk bottles, toothbrush, other types of brushes used for cleaning bottles and teethers were being displayed and sold in the shop in question.
21. The mere fact that the testimony is not corroborated by photographs does not render it unreliable as the testimony in itself is clear and cogent. It is also pertinent to mention, that during the defence evidence, the AR of the accused admitted that the aforesaid plastic goods "were kept in some quantity in the shop for the purpose of sale". This admission made on oath by the AR of the accused is certainly a strong piece of evidence against the accused, and further lends credence to the case of the MCD.
22. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to deal with another contention raised by Ld. counsel that the accused does not use the shop in question to 'store' any such articles, but merely to 'sell' them. This court is not in agreement with this argument since Section 417 expressly covers the act of storage for sale. The same is evident by a bare perusal of the proviso which reads as follows:
Provided that a Corporation may declare that premises in which the aggregate quantity of articles stored for sale does not exceed such quantity as may be prescribed by bye-laws in respect of any such articles shall be exempted from the operation of clause (d). (emphasis supplied)
23. Therefore, the provision is not intended to apply merely to warehouses or godowns which only store articles, but also to Page No. 10 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) shops which store some quantity of articles for sale. In view of the language of Section 417, it is clear that even storing articles specified in Schedule 11 for sale requires a municipal license.
24. This brings us to the next argument raised by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no evidence on record such as an inventory to show the quantity of such plastic goods as alleged in the challan. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the accused also relied on a public notice dated 19.02.1983 issued by the Commissioner, MCD. The said notice declares that the storage of certain articles beyond the quantity prescribed is licensable. In light of the same, it was argued that the MCD has failed to lead any evidence to prove the quantity of the plastic goods alleged to be stored.
25. As per the proviso to Section 417, the MCD may prescribe maximum quantity of articles which may be stored without a license. Public notice dated 19.02.1983 was issued in exercise of this power. Clarifications were sought from MCD regarding the said notice. It was submitted that the notice has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jaipur Golden Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi W.P.(C) 9487 of 2004. Moreover, the same has been upheld by a division bench of the Hon'ble High Court in LPA 2505/2005 dated 01.10.2013. Therefore, the conditions prescribed by the public notice with regard to minimum quantity are no longer enforceable.
26. Moreover, there is no provision in the DMC Act which prescribes any minimum quantity of goods that are required to be stored in a premises for the same to be licensable under Section 417, therefore proof of quantity of the goods stored is not an ingredient of the offence under Section 417 DMC Act. Under the law, as it stands, all that is required for the MCD to prove is that Page No. 11 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) goods mentioned in any of the entries in the Schedule to the DMC Act are stored in the premises without a municipal license. Therefore, it is no legal defence for the accused to claim that it is exempt from the requirement of obtaining a license under Section 417 DMC Act merely because it stores small quantities of plastic goods.
27. Lastly, this court would like to address the defence of the accused that having a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is sufficient for operating their shop. The DMC Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are two completely distinct legislations, and no provision under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act overrides the requirement of obtaining a license under any other legislation. The same trade may be subject to licensing regimes under different legislations, therefore the accused cannot seek an exemption from a license under Section 417 of the DMC Act on this ground.
28. In the present case, the testimony of CW-1, along with the admission made by the AR of the accused are sufficient to establish that the accused was storing plastic goods at the shop in question without an MCD license, which is an offence under Section 417/461 DMC Act.
29. As far as the offence under Section 430 DMC Act is concerned, a bare perusal of the provision reveals that it is applicable only when a grantee of a license fails to produce the license. An essential prerequisite for attracting this provision is that the accused must have been granted a license in the first place. Here, the case of the MCD is that the accused was running the trade without procuring the requisite municipal license, and the same has also been admitted by the accused. Since the Page No. 12 of 13 MCD CHL 4/2019 STATE Vs. APPOLO HOSPITAL (Civil Lines) accused was not granted a license in terms of Section 417 of the DMC Act, this provision is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the offence under Section 430 is not made out against the accused.
Conclusion
30. Therefore, MCD has successfully proved the guilt of the accused under Section 417/461 DMC Act beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly the accused M/s Apollo Pharmacy stands convicted for the offence under Section 417/461 DMC Act, however the MCD has failed to prove the guilt of the accused qua the offence under Section 430 DMC Act, accordingly the accused is acquitted for the same.
Announced in open court today i.e. 18.11.2025.
Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH
REGHUNATH Date:
2025.11.18
15:30:00 +0530
(GOWRI REGHUNATH)
JMFC-10/Central/THC
18.11.2025
It is certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH REGHUNATH Date:
2025.11.18 15:30:05 +0530 (GOWRI REGHUNATH) JMFC-10/Central/THC 18.11.2025 Page No. 13 of 13