Delhi High Court
Dulal Diswas vs State on 7 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 2nd November, 2017
Order pronounced on 7th November, 2017
+ CRL. REV. PET. 784/2016
DULAL DISWAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta and
Mr.Pradhuman Gautam, Advocates with
petitioner in person.
Versus
STATE ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State with
SI Amit Pratap Singh, PS-Lajpat Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. Vide order dated 22.09.2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate
convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections
332/461 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced him to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment
for a period of three days. The said order was assailed by the
petitioner before the Court of Sessions and vide order dated
09.11.2016, the Additional Sessions Judge-04, Special Judge (PC
Act), South-East , Saket Courts, New Delhi upheld the order dated
22.09.2016. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition.
CRL. REV. PET. 784/2016 Page 1 of 3
2. The case of the prosecution as emerges from the record is that the
petitioner, is an owner of the property bearing No. D-5, Kasturba
Niketan, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi and he carried out
unauthorized construction in the shape of sunshade at ground floor,
first floor and entire second floor of the aforesaid property without
prior permission of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New
Delhi; that the aforesaid construction was booked by the concerned
authority vide File No. 654/B/UC/EE/(B)/CNZ/15 dated
03.07.2015; that an FIR under Section 332/461 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act was registered against the petitioner and
subsequently chargesheet was filed before the Trial Court; that
while framing notice against the petitioner, he pleaded guilty for
the offences punishable under Section 332/461 of Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act and he was convicted and sentenced as noted in
para 1 above. Status report has been filed by the prosecution.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a
retired Government Servant having an unblemished service record
and clean antecedents; that the petitioner being the first time
offender voluntarily pleaded his guilt; that since the act of the
petitioner was not with an intention to cause any harm to public at
large, only fine should have been imposed.
4. Learned APP for the State opposed the present Criminal Revision
Petition and contended that the impugned order does not suffer
from any infirmity and hence no interference is called for by this
Court.
CRL. REV. PET. 784/2016 Page 2 of 3
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner pleaded his guilt
when the notice was framed against him on 22.09.2016 and he was
subsequently convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
The petitioner is stated to be 62 years of age and as per his nominal
roll, he has already undergone imprisonment of 28 days out of one
month sentence awarded to him.
7. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, I am of the consideration view that the present petition
deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, sentence awarded to
the petitioner is modified to undergo simple imprisonment for the
period already undergone. The fine imposed upon the petitioner
and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 7th, 2017
gr
