Kailash Chandra Sharma vs Ndmc
2010 Latest Caselaw 3791 Del

     *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                       Date of Reserve: 2nd August, 2010

                               Date of Order: August 13th , 2010

                                    + Crl.MC 648 of 2010
%                                                                              13.08.2010
         Kailash Chandra Sharma                                       ...Petitioner
         Through: Mr. Chakroborty, Advocate

         Versus

         NDMC                                                         ...Respondents
         Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                          JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner for

quashing an order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.75 of 2008 framing notice under Section

252/369(1) of the NDMC Act, 1994.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ had not considered that

the offence committed by the petitioner was not a continuing offence and the petitioner

had once been prosecuted for this offence and acquitted.

3. The offence for which the petitioner has been booked by NDMC is misuser of the

premises. So long as the misuse of the premises bearing number UB-5, Prakash Deep

Building, 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi is not stopped, the misuser is a continuing offence

Crl.MC No.648 /2010 Kailash Chandra Sharma v NDMC Page 1 Of 2 and for each day of misuser of the premises in question, the petitioner can be booked by

NDMC, as a separate offence. The plea taken by the petitioner that since his earlier

conviction for misuser is set aside on account of limitation, he, therefore, cannot be

convicted again for any misuse of the premises, in my opinion, is a baseless plea. This

aspect has already been dealt with by this Court in MCD v Mrs. Krishna Devi, I-1988(1)

Crimes 300.

4. I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned ASJ. The petition is hereby

dismissed being a frivolous petition with costs of Rs.25,000/-, to be deposited with Delhi

High Court Legal Services Committee.

August 13, 2010                                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Crl.MC No.648 /2010          Kailash Chandra Sharma v NDMC                       Page 2 Of 2