Full Text
JUDGMENT
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ....Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajjay Aroraa with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocates
For the Respondent : Respondent in person.
12.02.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CRL. Rev. P. 304/2016 & Crl.M.A.6515/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner MCD is aggrieved by order dated 09.03.2016, whereby, the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent, impugning order dated 10.03.2015 which had dismissed the application of the respondent under Section 471 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DMC Act’). 2018:DHC:1060
2. The respondent had filed the subject application contending that the prosecution launched by the Corporation MCD was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 471 of the DMC Act, 1957.
3. The Trial court was of the view that the cause of action was a continuing cause of action and, as such, every passing day led to fresh cause of action entitling the Corporation to file the challan/launched prosecution.
4. The Revisional Court, by the impugned order dated 09.03.2016, set aside the order of the Trial Court holding that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 471 of the DMC Act, 1957 was six months and it started to run when the offence was first brought to the notice of the complainant, which, in the present case, was found to be 24 years prior to the challan having been filed in the Court. This result was premised on the finding that the respondent had placed on record evidence to show that he had been running the subject Petrol Pump since 1961 and the same was within the knowledge of the MCD as he had obtained the trade licence, which was being renewed from time to time.
5. Reliance is placed by the respondent on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ravinder Kumar: 1990 (42) DLT 13, wherein, the Division Bench has held that the limitation for launching prosecution would be the limitation prescribed under Section 471 of the DMC Act, 1957 and not the one prescribed under Section 468 of Cr. P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only has the impugned order held in favour of the respondent, it has also directed the Commissioner, MCD (North) to conduct an inquiry into the matter to fix the responsibility of the erring MCD officials for initiating motivated prosecution against the petitioner and also to deduct the cost awarded of Rs.10,000/- to the paid to the respondent and Rs.20,000/- to be deposited in the State Exchequer, from the erring officials.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation had launched the prosecution based on the material available on record and there were no malafides on their part and the Officers had acted bonafidely in the interest of the Corporation and in accordance with their understanding of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officials had acted bonafidely and there was no motivated prosecution against the respondent.
8. Respondent, who appears in person, submits that he had not made any complaint against the officials but had only filed a revision petition to bring to the notice of the Court the relevant facts. He further submits that he does not wish to press any complaint against the officials of the MCD and does not contend that the prosecution was motivated.
9. After perusal of the records, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.03.2016 insofar as it accepts the revision petition filed by the respondent and holds that the prosecution launched by the petitioner was beyond time as prescribed under Section 471 of the DMC Act. However, keeping in view of the above noted facts, I am of the view that nothing has been brought on record to show that the action initiated by the officers of the Petitioner MCD was malafide and motivated.
10. In view of the above, the directions contained in the impugned order directing the Commissioner, MCD (North) to conduct an inquiry into the matter, to fix the responsibility of the erring MCD officials for initiating motivated prosecution against the petitioner and also to deduct the cost awarded of Rs.30,000/-, from the erring officials is set aside. However, the petitioner/MCD shall pay the cost of Rs.10,000/to respondent.
11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 12, 2018 st