SARDOOL SINGH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at the outset that notice was issued in this matter on 07.07.2006, confined to the issue that the question of limitation raised by the petitioner before the trial court as also the appellate court, has not been answered by either of them.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the DDA. It is the petitioner's contention that inspection of the premises in question was done on 10.03.1997 and the complaint was filed on 16.09.1998. Since the offence under Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is limited to the imposition of fine, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be six months. He submitted that the complaint was filed way beyond the period of six months and, therefore, was barred by limitation. It is for this reason that he had raised the point of limitation before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, which did not consider this plea raised by the petitioner.

(3.) The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 29(2) of the said Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. The petitioner has been found to be the proprietor of M/s. Paul Colour Photo Lab and Studio which was found to be conducting business at premises bearing no. F-14, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which is a residential area. The petitioner having put the said premises to commercial use thereby contravened the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act and, therefore, he was sentenced under Section 29(2) of the said Act with imposition of a fine of Rs.3,000/- as indicated above. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the petitioner by his order dated 17.02.2003 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the same in appeal by his order dated 13.04.2005.