CHARANJEET Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, "Criminal Procedure Code."), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/12/1996 passed by, the court of Ms.I.K.Kochhar, Additional. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, upholding his conviction under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act (for short, 'DD Act') and the sentence of fine of Rs.4,000.00, In default of payment of fine SI for 30 days

(2.) Facts in brief are: on 8/3/1994, P.K. Thapliyal, junior engineer (surveyor), inspected' the premises No.F-77, Jagat Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the premises"), and found a shop under the name and style of M/s.Sangam Sanitary Store, functioning on the ground floor; five persons were working there at the time of inspection. The premises under the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan No.E-8, could only be used for residential purposes. The report prepared at the spot along with the other papers were submitted to the officer concerned for grant of sanction for prosecution as mandated under Section 49 of the DD Act. After grant of sanction, complaint under Section 29(2) of the DD Act was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.K.Thapliyal, junior engineer Public Witness-1, who proved inspection report/FIR regarding non-conforming use of the premises Ex.CW-1/A; previous sanction granted by the competent authority under the DD Act Ex.Cw-1/B; complaint under Sections 14 read with 29 (2) of the DD Act Ex.CW-1/C; land use plan, Ex.CW-1/D; Zonal Map, Ex.CW-1/E; Sales-tax Certificate marked-A; and resolution of the D.D.A. Ex.CW-1/F. CW-2, Sunil Kumar, LDC from the Sales-tax Department, was also examined, who stated that Sales-tax number was allotted to M/s.Sangam Sanitary Store, functioning at the said premises, of which petitioner was the proprietor. The petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

(3.) Learned trial court vide judgement and order dated 30/1/1996, held; the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as noticed above. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 19/12/1996 by learned Additional. Sessions Judge, which is under challenge in this Revision.