DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. UMANG MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 15th July, 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on a complaint under section 14 read with section 29 (2) of Delhi Development Act, 1957.

(2.) BY order dated 15th July, 2006, it was held that the Appellant has been able to make out and prove his case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt that the premises was misused by Mr. Rohit Gupta, but as far as the present respondents are concerned, it was held that the Appellant has not been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt, as there is not enough material to support the finding that the respondents no. 2 and 3 are the persons in charge and responsible for conducting day to day affairs of the said firm, m/s Umang Motors, and therefore, the benefit of doubt was given to them and they were acquitted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was confirmed by the Sale Tax Department that M/s Umang Motors (Respondent No. 1) is a partnership firm constituting respondent No. 2 and 3 besides Mr. Rohit Gupta as partners. It has been asserted by the learned counsel that respondent No. 2 and 3 and Mr. Rohit Gupta, who has been convicted, are partners and therefore, all are jointly and severely responsible and it is for the individual partners to show that they are not in charge or responsible for the business of the firm, as the conduct of business is exclusively within the knowledge of the partners and therefore, it is for them to show that they are not responsible for the business of the firm and it is not for the appellant/complainant to prove that all or any of them are responsible or in charge of the business. It has been very strongly contended by learned counsel that once it is proved that the accused are partners of the offending firm, it is for the accused to prove that they are not responsible or in charge of the business of the firm and falls within the exception carved out.