S M TANEJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner lays a challenge to the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to drop proceedings initiated by the MCD against the petitioner under Sections 347/461 of the DMC Act, 1957. Further challenge is laid to the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the learned ASJ, Delhi dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) A two fold contention has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, in view of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, since petitioner was tried for same offence and was acquitted by Shri Brijesh Sethi, then learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, petitioner could not be prosecuted for a second time for the same offence. Second contention urged is that the learned Revisional Court failed to apply its mind to the issue raised evidenced by the fact that after noting the contention of the petitioner, save and except reproducing the operative part of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Revisional Court has not independently applied its mind.

(3.) Property No.F-15, Preet Vihar, New Delhi is admittedly in a residential colony. Land use of the plot on which the building is constructed is residential. Under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act 1957, Delhi Development Authority is empowered to prosecute a person found guilty of violating the land use as prescribed under the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan.