Delhi District Court
Cr No. 103/12. M/S Tnt India Pvt. Ltd. vs . Delhi on 18 November, 2014
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi
Municipal Corporation (Central Zone)
(now South Delhi Municipal Corporation).
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHUTOSH KUMAR :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE3 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI.
In the matter of:
CR No. 103/2012.
M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd.,
having its Registered &
Corporate Office at Bangalore,
and Zone Office at I4/B1 (SF),
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
New Delhi. ... Revisionist.
Vs.
Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone),
(now South Delhi Municipal Corporation),
through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Delhi. ... Respondent.
Date of Institution. : 27.8.2012. Date of Arguments. : 15.11.2014. Date of Order. : 18.11.2014. 18.11.2014. Present: None for revisionistaccused and respondent. Page No. 1 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). The present criminal revision petition is fixed for order for today.
Arguments on the present criminal revision petition were addressed by Sh. Pramod Gupta, ld. counsel for revisionist and Ms. Jagriti Singh, ld. counsel for respondent, on 15.11.2014.
I have perused the entire record including TCR, carefully.
:: ORDER ::
1. The challenge in the present criminal revision petition u/s 397 and 399 CrPC filed by the accused company (revisionist company herein), is to the impugned order dated 14.9.2010 passed by Sh. Kishore Kumar, ld. MM2 (Municipal), Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in complaint case no. 1548/09, titled as "MCD Vs. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd.", whereby the ld. Trial Court framed the notice u/s 251 CrPC for the offences u/s 416/417/430 of DMC Act against the revisionist company.
2. It is the case of the revisionist company that it is a company engaged in the main business, interalia of carrying on the import and export, light documents, express documents, Page No. 2 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). express parcels, commercial papers, business documents, printed matter freight and delivering the same throughout the world and also to carry on the business of distribution and logistic services and providing domestic and international courier services and to carry documents and samples, having no commercial or saleable value, through all modes and means of transport and further to act as agents and representatives for Indian as well as foreign express delivery courier, cargo freight and travel related companies. It is further the case of the revisionist company that it has a Zonal Office at Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, which controls, supervises, operates and monitors the business of the revisionist company in northern part of India. It is further the claim of the revisionist company that core area of business of the revisionist company is international and domestic courier and cargo services. It is further the case of the revisionist company that at no point of time, the revisionist company was engaged in the business of the information technology related business, but is using the information technology in its business for internal and external purposes. It is also the case of the revisionist company that the officials of the respondent, visited the Zonal Office of the revisionist company on 21.10.2009 and demanded the Page No. 3 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). license for running the trade of information technology enabled services and data processing and inspite of the stand of the revisionist company that it is not engaged in the running the trade of information technology enabled services and data processing, therefore the legal requirement of license is not required and despite the fact that the revisionist company produced all necessary legal documents required for the business of international and domestic courier and cargo services, the officials of the respondent were not satisfied and thereby registered a challan/complaint no. 404969 dated 21.10.2009 u/s 416/417/430/461 of DMC Act, 1957, and directed the revisionist company to appear before the Court of MCD on 23.10.2009, alongwith necessary documents.
3. The main ground of the revisionist company is that the revisionist company cannot do business outside the scope of its Memorandum of Association, which is a legal document and registered with the Registrar of Companies and that no document/evidence was produced on record, which may prima facie show that the revisionist company committed the alleged offences. It is further claimed that rather the documents produced by the revisionist company showed that the revisionist Page No. 4 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). company is a courier company and hence the notice framed for aforesaid offences is contrary to material on record and accordingly the impugned order may be set aside.
4. The respondent had filed reply and the ld. counsel for respondent had denied the contentions made by the ld. counsel for revisionist and had argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court and the same has been correctly passed after considering the material on record.
5. Section 416 of DMC Act, 1957, reads as under: "(1) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Commissioner establish in any premises, or materially alter, enlarge or extend, any factory, workshop or trade premises in which it is intended to employ steam, electricity, water or other mechanical power."
6. Thus it is very much clear from the plain reading of Section 416 of DMC Act that prior permission in writing from the Commissioner of MCD is necessary prerequisite to establish any factory or trade in which it is intended to employ electricity Page No. 5 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). etc. As per the claim of the respondent, the revisionist company was running the trade of information technology enabled services from the aforesaid premises, which employs electricity etc. Mere denial by the revisionist company that it was not indulging in the said business, would not suffice. At the stage of notice u/s 251 CrPC, the Court has to take the case of the prosecution on face value. Only after evidence of concerned officials of respondent, who had visited the premises of the revisionist company and had claimed that the aforesaid trade was being run, can it be inferred as to whether the same was indeed was being run or not. Even otherwise, from bare perusal of reading of Section 416 of DMC Act, it is clear that license from MCD is required for running any trade, which employs electricity etc. and even if for arguments sake it is assumed that the revisionist company was not running the aforesaid particular trade, still even if it was running any other trade, which employs electricity etc. without license, it would be liable. Further the stand of the respondent as mentioned in para no. 6 of its reply is that Schedule 11 of the DMC Act contains the list of items, which cannot be stored without permission as contained in Section 417 of DMC Act, 1957. It is further the case of the respondent that as per Master Plan of Delhi 2021 for Page No. 6 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). classification of industries, the activity of information technology enabled services, is classified as industry at serial no. 48, Group A and since this activity employs electricity to run the trade/industry, therefore same is covered u/s 416 of DMC Act. Ld. counsel for respondent has also drawn my attention to Section 42 (x), wherein one of the obligatory functions of the corporation is to implement the provision of any law. It was also the stand of the respondent that it complies with the provisions of the Master Plan of Delhi 2021.
7. In the case of "State of Orissa Vs. D.N. Padhi", 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no document of the accused can be considered at the stage of framing of charge (or notice u/s 251 CrPC). In para no. 18 of the aforesaid judgment, it was held as under: "18. ... ... ... Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is wellsettled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused Page No. 7 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the state (stage ?) of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police."
8. Further it is well settled that no meticulous examination of the material available is to be conducted and no roving inquiry is permitted at the stage of consideration of the point of Page No. 8 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). charge (or notice u/s 251 CrPC). Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of "Onkar Nath Mishra & Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another", 2008 (1) JCC 65.
9. Neither disputed documents of accused can be looked into nor the counter version of accused can be considered at the stage of notice u/s 251 CrPC. The case of the prosecution has to be taken on face value and only if still no case is made out, then an accused can be discharged or released (as per Section 258 CrPC). The disputed questions of facts can only be decided by means of evidence.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the case laws, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order of the ld. Trial Court and the same has been passed on the basis of material on record. The counter version of the revisionist company cannot be considered at this stage, as the same is a disputed question of fact and is a matter of evidence. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.
11. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be sent back to the Page No. 9 of 10. Contd... ... ...
CR No. 103/12. M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation (Central Zone) (now South Delhi Municipal Corporation). ld. Trial/Successor Court for information and compliance, for 24.11.2014 at 2.00 pm.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the ld. Trial/Successor Court at the given date and time.
13. Revision petition file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 18.11.2014.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE3 :
DWARKA COURTS : DELHI Page No. 10 of 10. Contd... ... ...