Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 13.05.2004 vide which the appellant has been convicted u/s 14 read with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the "DD Act") and order on sentence dated 27.05.2004 vide which a fine of Rs.100/- per day for 240 days amounting to Rs.24,000/- had been imposed on the appellant.

The facts in brief are that the appellant had been convicted by the Court of Sh. A. S. Yadav, the then Ld. MM, u/s 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act for using premises no. A-25, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, in contravention of the provisions of Master Plan of Delhi and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. However, again on inspection the Junior Engineer of DDA vide his report dated 02.06.1984 had reported that the appellant had not stopped the misuse even after the orders of the Court and the same has been continued upto the date of inspection dated 02.06.1984. Hence, the present complaint was filed.

The accused Bank along with the Chairman, Sh. R. K. Tiwari were summoned but Sh. R. K. Tiwari died during the pendency of the proceedings and the proceedings against him were dropped.

Notice u/s 251 Cr.PC served on 12.08.1987 on the Bank through its representative Sh. Inderjeet Singh Dhillon, to which he pleaded not guilty.

Three witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The appellant had examined two witnesses.

The Ld. Trial Court after considering the evidence, concluded that the Bank was guilty for the offence u/s 14 r/w Section 29 (2) of DD Act and accordingly sentenced the Bank to pay a fine of Rs.24,000/-.

In the case of "DDA v. R. K. Gupta, IV (1995) CCR 425 DB, Delhi High Court", it was observed that the evidence of the prosecution coupled with the admission of the respondents in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC is sufficient to base

- 10 -

the conviction u/s 14 read with Section 29(2) of DD Act.

In the present case as well, PW1 has deposed about the previous conviction of the appellant for mis-use of premises and this fact had been admitted on behalf of the Bank in the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. Mere, non- production of certified copy of the judgment dated 06.10.1983 would not disprove the earlier conviction, which is admitted even by the Bank. The non-production of certified copy of the earlier conviction is, therefore, not fatal for approving the conviction.