Delhi District Court
Shyam Lal vs State on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.R. SETHI: ASJ, SPECIAL
JUDGE(NDPS) NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Criminal Revision 10/2015
Shyam Lal,
S/o Shri Mer Singh,
R/o Kh. No. 365, Gali No.11,
Nathu Colony, Nathupura,
Burari,
Delhi - 110 084.
..... Petitioner.
Versus
STATE
..... Respondent.
Revision arising out of order dated
20.3.2015 passed in Kalandra U/s 28/112
(DD No. 10A), PS Adarsh Nagar.
Date of institution of the case : 27.03.2015
Date when final arguments concluded : 31.03.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.03.2015
ORDER:
1 Petitioner before this court has challenged order dated 20.3.2015 passed by Ld. court of Shri Rajender Kumar, Judge Evening Court No.1-North, Rohini in Kalandra registered vide DD 10A dated 18/19.3.2015 whereby Ld. trial court had imposed fine of Rs.50/- upon .
(CR 10/15) Page 1 of5 the petitioner and had directed SHO to file closure report in respect of Guest House which was being managed by the petitioner. 2 After the revision petition was assigned to this court, trial court record was summoned and thereafter submissions heard. 3 It was submitted by Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not the owner of the disputed premises i.e. New Mayur Guest House rather was merely running it on behalf of owner Shri Arun Kumar Sachdeva. As per Ld. counsel, owner Arun Kumar Sachdeva had a valid license to run the Guest House and the same was valid from 3.9.2014 till 31.3.2015. Ld. counsel submitted that as there was a valid license for running the said Guest House, the petitioner could not have been convicted by Ld. trial court and such an order being unreasonable and unjustified deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that in pursuance to the said order, police officials have already closed the New Mayur Guest House.
4 Opposing, Ld. PP submitted that the applicant was running the Guest House on contract basis and it was his duty to obtain the license for running the Guest House. It was submitted that Ld. trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner on basis of a plea of guilt and had rightly sentenced him to fine of Rs.50/- and also directed closure of the Guest House. Dismissal of revision petition was prayed. 5 Trial court record has been perused by this court. Perusal thereof reveals that the New Mayur Guest House had a valid license in respect of 13 rooms and the same was valid from 3.9.2014 till 31.3.2015. As per Kalandra, the raid had been conducted on 18/19.3.2015. As such, the raid had been conducted during validity of the license.
.
(CR 10/15) Page 2 of5 6 A perusal of the Kalandra reveals that there was no allegation
regarding the present petitioner running the Guest House without any license. As per allegations mentioned therein, one Ajay Kumar was found in Room No. 208 and there was no entry in the guest house register regarding his presence. It was on basis thereof that the present petitioner was challaned U/s 28/112 D.P. Act. 7 Perusal of record further reveals that the order passed by Ld. trial court on 20.3.2015 was in the form of a rubber stamp and was so made on the Kalandra itself. The said order only mentions about the accused having pleaded guilty and having been convicted U/s 28/112 D.P. Act and sentenced to Rs.50/-. There is no direction given in the said order to the accused to close down the guest house. Even the order sheet of even date does not specifically mention about any order regarding direction to the accused/convict to close down the guest house. All it mentions is that the closure report be filed by the SHO concerned for 20.4.2015.
8 This court is left guessing as to how the closure report can be filed by the SHO without any specific order to that effect. As per Section 112 D.P. Act, while convicting an accused, the court firstly has to direct the person keeping the said place to close down the same until he obtains a license or a fresh license. It is only on failure of the said person to comply with such direction that action can be taken in that regard by the police authorities. Ld. trial court without having directed the convict(petitioner) to close down the guest house could not, in considered opinion of this court, order for filing of a closure .
(CR 10/15) Page 3 of5 report and that too without having passed any specific order in that regard.
9 During course of his submission Ld. counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 175/2013 & Crl. M.A. No. 655/2013). It was inter- alia observed therein that an employee/agent of owner cannot be prosecuted U/s 28/112 D.P. Act as he is not supposed to obtain a license and Kalandra should not be prepared against employee available at the premises.
Similar views were expressed in Janak Raj Vs. State (CRL.M.C. 312/2012 & Crl. MA 1125/2012) by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 10 Be that as it may, in view of fact that the guest house had a valid license which was valid from 3.9.2014 to 31.3.2015 while the raid was conducted on the intervening night of 18/19.3.2015 and in view of fact that Ld. trial court had not ordered any direction to the convict to close down the guest house nor had passed any direction to the SHO concerned to close it down on failure of the convict to close down the guest house and in view of judicial pronouncements mentioned herein- above, this court is of considered opinion that the impugned order is not free from infirmities and irregularities as observed herein-above. 11 Accordingly while accepting the revision petition, the impugned order dated 20.3.2015 is hereby set aside and quashed. By way of this order, SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar is directed to permit reopening of the guest house subject to the owner taking a fresh license / renewed license as the earlier license expired on 31.3.2015.
.
(CR 10/15) Page 4 of5 13 Copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent back to Ld.
trial court. Revision file be separated and consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 30.3.2015 ASJ,Spl. Judge(NDPS)
North,Rohini Courts, Delhi
.
(CR 10/15) Page 5 of5