Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ravindra Kumar Mahindra on 30 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991CRILJ2630, 42(1990)DLT13
JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.
(1) The respondent was prosecuted under section 332 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short Dmc Act). But the learned Metropolitan Magistrate declined to proceed in the matter on the ground that the complaint was barred by the limitation as set out under section 471 of the Dmc Act. The impugned order says that since the offence had come to the knowledge on 19th of March 1986 the complaint ought to have been filed within six months thereafter but it was in fact filed on 14th October 1986.
(2) The short question that was canvassed before us by Mr. Lao is that an amendment came to be effected in the Dmc Act in 1984 which came into force on 10th of December 1985 and section 466A was added to the Dmc Act. According to Mr. Lao since some of the offences under the Dmc Act including the offence under section 332 has been made cognizable and the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made applicable the limitation would be determined by section 458 the Code of Criminal Procedure. We may notice section 466A of the Dmc Act which reads as under: "466A.Certain offences to be cognizable. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to, - (a) an offence under Sub-section (5j of section 313 or section 332 or sub-section (1) of section 334 or section 343 or section 344 or section 345 or section 347; (b) an offence under sub-section (1) of section 317 or sub-section (1) of section 320 or sub-section (1) of section 321 or sub-section (1) of section 325 or section 339 in relation to any street which is a public street, as if it were a cognizable offence- (i) for the purposes of investigation of such offence; and (ii) for the purposes of all matters other than- (1) matters referred to in section 42 of that Code, and (2) arrest of a person, except on the complaint of, or upon information received from such officer of the Corporation, not being below the rank of Deputy Commissioner, as may be appointed by the Administrator: Provided that no offence of the contravention of any condition subject of which sanction was accorded for the erection of any building or the execution of any work shall be cognizable, if such contravention relates to any deviation from any plan of such erection or execution sanctioned by the Commissioner which is compoundable on payment of an amount under the bye-laws relating to buildings made under this Act."
(3) According to our reading all that section 466A slates is that certain offences under the Dmc Act including the offences under section 332 shall be investigated and dealt with as if it were a cognizable offence. Mr. Gandhi has invited our attention to section 471 of the Dmc Act which lays down the limitation for the offence under the DMC. Act Section 471 we may. therefore, quote hert, which reads as under : "471.No person shall be liable to punishment for any offence against this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law made there under, unless complaint of such offence is made before a municipal magistrate within six months next after- (a) the date of the commission of such offence, or (b) the date of which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the complainant".
(4) The provision clearly sets out the scope. Even though section 466A does not make certain offences under the Dmc Act cognizable and has permitted their investigation to be done as if these offences were cognizable. the offences do not cease to be offences under the Dmc Act and section 471 clearly lays down the period of limitation within which action for offences under the Dmc Act shall be initiated. It, therefore, clearly bars prosecution beyond a period of six months from the date of the commission of the offence or from the date when the existence of such offence was brought to the notice of the complainant. In our view, therefore, section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable as the offences under the Dmc Act will be covered by the provision regarding limitation made in the Act itself.
(5) Mr. Lao next urged before us that the Corporation acts through its agencies and the limitation will start from the date the existence of the offence is brought to the notice of the complainant. We do not think it is necessary for us to go into this aspect for the simple reason that the complainant himself has stated that the offence came to his knowledge on 19th of March 1986. Mr. Gandhi has taken us through the notice of the Municipal Corporation wherein the date of the knowledge of the offence has been specified as 19th of March 1986. These notices were supplied to the respondent Along with the complaint under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter the appeal is dismissed.
(6) In conclusion we want to make it clear that for the purpose of limitation section 471 of the Dmc Act alone will be applicable to ail the offences under the said Act and not section 468 Cr.P.C.