Delhi District Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gauri Shanker on 28 May, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH , M.M, NEW DELHI.
C.C. No. 425/01
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Dy. Commissioner,
Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi ............. Complainant
Versus
Gauri Shanker
S/o Sh. Jagdish Parsad
R/o A-38 Ashok Vihar, Phase II,
Delhi. .................Accused
Date of Institution: 25.11.02
Date of Judgment: 28.05.08
JUDGMENT
The accused has been sent up for trial on the chit challans of the MCD dated 7.7.00 & 9.2.02. The allegations of the complainant against the accused are that on 7.7.00 he was found running Dal Mill without obtaining MCD license and under unhygienic and insanitary condition at Premises NO. 147/1, Nangli , Poona , Delhi. And on 9.9.02, he was found running sale of Dals without obtaining MCD license and under unhygienic and insanitary condition.
2. Notice under Section 416/417 punishable under Section 461 DMC Act was framed against the accused by my Ld. Predecessor on 4.8.04 to which accused pleaded not guilty 2 and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, complainant examined two witnesses. PW-1 J.S. Sehrawat, Public Health Inspector and PW-2 H.S. Sharma, ALO, MCD.
4. Statement of the accused under Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 12.12.05. Accused preferred to lead evidence in defence and examined DW-1 Sh. Abhey Kumar Singh, Record Keeper , office of the Municipal Secretary; S.K. Jha, Record Keeper, Factory Licensing as DW-2 and Sh. Parveen Bhardwaj, Patwari, Narela Tehsil as DW-3.
5. I have heard the Ld. AMP for the complainant as well as the Ld. Defence counsel.
6. In the entire evidence led by the complainant, there is no statement/testimony to the effect that accused was running a Dal Mill and was required to have a license for the same. Therefore, I find that offence under Section 416 DMC Act is not proved.
7. Now, the question is whether, the MCD has proved that the accused is guilty of offence under Section 417 DMC Act? As per the testimony of PW-1, he visited the premises of the accused on 9.9.02 and, found trading of Dal being done. He met the accused and asked him to show the trading license but, the accused denied having the same and he then prepared the challan Ex. PW1/A. He then asked the accused to append his signatures on the challan but the accused refused to do so. The offence alleged is under Section 417 DMC Act . Section 417 DMC Act reads as under:
'' (1) No person shall use or permit to be used any 3 premises for any of the following purposes without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a license granted by the Commissioner in this behalf, namely:-
(a) any of the purpose 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 of those articles:
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 license granted under this section for the use of premises as mills or iorn 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 sub-section (1)'
8. The reading of the aforesaid Section clearly shows that the allegations against the accused do not fall in any of the categories as provided under Section 417 (1) sub clause b & c DMC Act.
49. The question which now needs to be decided is whether the activities allegedly being carried out by the accused fall under the categories provided under Section 417 (1) (a) or
(d) DMC Act? These are the activities which are provided under the eleventh schedule part I & II of the DMC Act.
10. Ld. AMP has argued that the activities of trading in Dals is covered under Part I of Eleventh Schedule of the DMC Act wherein, entry 8 provides that the trade or operations connected with grains are prohibited. I do not agree with this contention for two reasons. Firstly, the word 'Dal' as translated to English means 'Pulses' and; pulses are not grains as defined in the 'Oxford Dictionary'. Secondly, even if for the sake of arguments, it is agreed that pulses are covered within the meaning of word 'grain' then , the activity prohibited by entry 8 of the Eleventh Schedule is their parching whereas; in the present case , there is no allegation that parching of pulses was being carried out in the premises in question. In these circumstances, I acquit the accused of the charge under Section 416/417 punishable under Section 461 DMC Act. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Endorsement on the document, if any, be cancelled. Original documents of the surety, if any, be returned to him as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court. ( PARVEEN SINGH ) Dated: 28.05.08. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
NEW DELHI.