Delhi District Court
State vs . Tanzeem Ahmed on 25 November, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL12, DELHI
DD No. 19A Dt. 20.08.2007
Case ID: 02401R0872782007
State Vs. Tanzeem Ahmed
PS Lahori Gate
U/s 28/112 DP Act
Date of Institution of case : 29.08.2007
Date of Judgment : 25.11.2013
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 20.08.2007 b) Offence complained of : 28/112 DP Act c) Name of Accused, his :Tanzeem Ahmed parentage & residence S/o Sh. Bashir Ahmed R/o H.No.582, Gali Jutewali Churiwalan, Delhi. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the accused has been charged for committing the offence u/s 28/112 DP Act . The DD no.19A Page 1 of 8 2 allegation against the accused are that on 20.08.2007, at about 11:30am, at 774, 768/1, Ballimaran, within the jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate he was found running Sheeraj hotel( guest house) without the requisite license. It has been alleged that the accused failed to produce the required license on demand and the accused had not even applied for the necessary license till that day. As per the version of prosecution, the accused thus committed offence u/s 28/112 DP Act.
2. The Kalandra was filed by the police in Court on 29.08.2007 and the copy of the documents was supplied to the accused on his appearance on the same day in compliance of provision u/s 207 CrPC.
3. Notice of the accusation for the offence u/s 28/112 DP Act was thereafter put to the accused vide order dt.24.05.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 2 DD no.19A Page 2 of 8 3 witness:
5. Ct. Imtiyaz has been examined as PW1, who stated that on 30.08.2007, he was posted at PS Lahori Gate as Ct and on that day he alongwith SI P.C.Sharma was on patrolling duty and while patrolling they reached at property no.774 and 768/1 i.e Hotel Siraj, Ballimaran, Delhi, where they found that the accused was running the hotel (guest house) at the place aforesaid. He further deposed that accused Tanzeem Ahmed was sitting inside the said hotel (guest house) and he disclosed that he is the owner of the said hotel (guest house). Thereafter, IO checked the booking register of the hotel. PW1 furthermore deposed that he demanded the valid license of the hotel (guest house) but accused failed to produce the same. IO thereon challaned the accused u/s 28/112 DP Act and prepared kalandra for the said offence as Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that one DD entry 19A was also recorded in this regard as Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos as Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D. IO also seized the photocopies of the register of the hotel vide seizure memo as Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he took the photographs of the spot as Ex.PW1/F. He was examined, DD no.19A Page 3 of 8 4 cross examined and discharged.
6. SI P.C.Sharma has been examined as PW2. He also deposed on the same lines as PW1. He was cross examined and discharged.
7. PE was closed by the Court vide order dt.06.09.2013. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. Statement of accused was thereon recorded separately by putting the entire incriminating evidence to the accused u/s 313 CrPC read with 281 CrPC vide order dt.08.11.2013. Since, the accused did not wish to lead any defence evidence, hence, matter was fixed for final arguments straightaway.
9. Final arguments heard. File perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
10. In the present case, the accused has been prosecuted for DD no.19A Page 4 of 8 5 the offence u/s 28 read with section 112 DP Act. The provision of the Law u/s 112 DP Act provides for the penalty for the contravention of the Law and the same reads as under: 112 Penalty for not obtaining license in respect of place of public entertainment or certificate of registration in respect of eating house or for not renewing such licence or certificate within prescribed period1) Whoever fails to obtain a licence under this Act in respect of a place of public entertainment or a certificate of registration thereunder in respect of any eating house, or to renew the licence or the certificate, as the case may be, within the prescribed period shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees.
11. The said two places i.e public entertainment and eating house have been defined u/s 2 Clause (h) and section 2 (l) of the said Act, whereunder it is stated that: 2(h)"eating house" means any place to which the public are admitted and where any kind of food or DD no.19A Page 5 of 8 6 drink is supplied for consumption on the premises by any person owning, or having any interest in, or managing, such place and includes
(i) a refreshment room, boarding house or coffee house or
(ii) a shop where any kind of food or drink is supplied to the public for consumption in r near such shop, but does not include a place of public entertainment.
while Section 2(l) of the Delhi Police Act defines "Place of public entertainment " as a lodging house, boarding and lodging house or residential hostel and includes any eating house or other place in which any kind of liquor or intoxicating drug is supplied (such as tavern or a shop where beer, spirit, arrack, toddy, ganja, bhang, or opium is supplied) to the public for consumption in or near such place.
12. Herein this case, since the penalty is only for not obtaining any licence while running an eating house or a place of public entertainment, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused DD no.19A Page 6 of 8 7 was infact running any such eating house or a place of public entertainment. However, perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the accused was indeed running any eating house or place of public entertainment. No mention to this fact has been uttered by any of the prosecution witness examined in this case where as on the other hand, the accused has specifically stated in his statement before the Court that he is running a registered Sarai at the abovesaid place in respect of which he has been challaned u/s 28/112 DP Act. A sarai as such can not be said to be a place of public entertainment or an eating house as the same does not fall within the purview of any definition of the said places as stated above. The prosecution has not brought any evidence to prove that the accused was serving any food, liquor or was providing entertainment at his place so as to attract the provision u/s 28/112 DP Act. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against the accused completely and in absence of any evidence to even suggest or to prove any guilt on part of the accused, the latter hereby stands acquitted of the offence u/s 28/112 DP Act accordingly.
DD no.19A Page 7 of 8 8
13. Bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.
14. Original documents, if any, be returned to the respective parties against receipt after verification and on cancellation of endorsement as per rules.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced and Signed in the Open Court on 25th of November 2013. (Harun Pratap) MM12(Central)/THC/Delhi 25.11.2013 DD no.19A Page 8 of 8