Full Text
CRL.M.C. 541/2011
MOHDIRFAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.B.Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.Shaniikh, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
MOHD IRFAN
Through:
Petitioner Mr. K.B.Andley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.Shamikh, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
21.02.2013 To assail the impugned order of 8^ December, 2010 in the above- captioned two petitions, the common ground put forth is that in the earlier order of 12^ April, 1999, a finding has been returned that no licence is required to run the guest house in question.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 541 & 542 of 2011 Page 1 2013:DHC:6622
W- J \iy After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the impugned order and the record of this case, I find that both these petitions can be disposed of together by this common order. Subject matter of Criminal
M.C.No. 542/2011 is the kalandara under Section 28/112 of Delhi Police
Act registered vide DD No. 33A of 24*^ February, 2007 and Criminal
M.C.No. 541/2011 is in respect of another similar kalandara, which was registered vide DD No. IIA dated lO'*" January, 2008. Petitioner has been called upon to face the proceedings in the aforesaid kalandaras because he does not hold a licence to run the guest house in question. The precise submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that order of 12^ April, 1999 holding that no licence is required for running the guest house in question operates as a res judicata and so the instant prosecution under the aforesaid two kalandaras isper se bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
In Criminal M.C.No. 541/2011, a status report has been placed on record by respondent-State wherein reliance has been placed upon
Government Notification of 19"^ December, 1980 which has been adverted to in the impugned order in these words:
" X X Thirdly, the plea that the decision given by Mr. M.S.Rohilla, the then Ld. MM is binding and thisprosecution is resulting in doublejeopardy is not sustainable. Thejudgmentpassed by the thenLd. MMis not binding on this Court and more over it is in ignorance of Section 4(2) of Regulations for keeping places of Public Entertainment in the UT of Delhi -
ORDER
1980. It must be indicated that a licence is not issued in perpetuity but for a limited period as per the Rules prevailing at the time of consideration of its grant. A bare perusal ofthe definition would show that a place of Crl.M.CNos. 541 & 542 of 2011 Page 2 I r ]> public entertainment means boarding and lodginghouse which is the case with the present petitioner/revisionist and it is not covered by Section 2(h) ofD.P.Act. Lastly, thepetitioner/revisionist isyet to offer his defence to the notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and he has been ill advised to rush to this Court in revision and, therefore, also the defence raised in this revision cannot be considered. " In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or infirmity in the prima facie view taken in the impugned order as noticed hereinabove. Moreover, the earlier order of12^^^ April, 1999 inignorance of aforesaid Government Notification cannot be treated as a binding precedent. Without commenting upon the merits of this matter, these petitions are dismissed with liberty to petitioner to urge the points taken here before the trial Court. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge FEBRUARY 21, 2013 vn CrLM.C.Nos. 541 &542 of 2011 Page 3