Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the allegations against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case as he was neither the user nor the owner / contractor for the Sulabh Suachalyay. Sulabh Sauchalayay is CC No:­ 24/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj BYPL Vs. Bhola Sahay the property of MCD.

6. Sh. Nand Kishore, Adv. for the accused had submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by the officials of the company. He had no knowledge of raid conducted at the subject premises. During cross examination of PW - 1 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the case. He had deposed on the basis of documents prepared and procured by department officer.

10. The company did not procure the documents pertaining to occupancy or the ownership of the inspected premises. No inquiry in this respect was conducted by the company at the time of inspection or before filing the present complaint. All the above noted facts were considered in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Crl. L.P.No. 598/2013 decided on 21.01.2014 titled as BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. CC No:­ 24/08 Police Station:­ Darya Ganj BYPL Vs. Bhola Sahay Vs. Guddu in which accused was acquitted as company failed to procure the documents of occupancy / ownership.