MANI SHANDLY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEMPERANCE is the hallmark of judicial authority. The exercise of judicial authority is not 'show of strength" but a duty to be performed with humility and yet firmness. This cardinal principle seems to have been lost while passing orders in the present case.

(2.) THE petitioners, both ladies, have been charged under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the MCD on the allegation of misuse of property consisting ground floor of property bearing No. B-23, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New delhi in the capacity of the owner/occupier. The criminal complaint No. 1291/2001 is filed by the MCD, which was pending in the Court of the learned mm. The offence is a bailable offence punishable with simple imprisonment, which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000. 00 or with both. It is the case of the petitioners that they were only employees working in the said premises at the relevant time and had been falsely implicated on the inspection carried out since the owner/accused No. 1 was not present in the premises. The complaint was filed in the year 2001 and the misuse is stated to have been stopped by the owner and the premises are even stated to have been transferred on a subsequent date.

(3.) THE petitioners state that they have been appearing in the complaint case commencing from their first appearance on 17. 9. 2002 without any default. On 30. 10. 2006 notice was framed under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. against the petitioners and the matter was adjourned to 24. 3. 2008 for evidence. The petitioners alleged that they had wrongly noted the date as 25. 3. 2008 and thus failed to appear on 24. 3. 2008. An application for exemption on behalf of the first accused was moved which was allowed on 24. 3. 2008 but since neither the counsel nor the petitioners as accused Nos. 2 and 3 were present, the personal bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and nbws were issued against the petitioners. Simultaneously notices under section 446 of the Cr. P. C. were issued against the accused persons as well as the sureties returnable on 28. 7. 2008.