M.C.D. V/S. STATE OF DELHI, (2005) 4 SCC 605 196

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The facts of the case are briefly discussed here that the indignant Mr. M.K. Verma, Junior Engineer, where he found unauthorized construction going at the first floor of the plot. F.I.R. was made on the report of Mr. M.K. Verma which is forwarded the F.I.R. before Zonal Engineer, who ordered the issue notice under section 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. After that, the second respondent along with Kuldeep Singh were prosecuted for commission of offences under Section 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act before the hon’ble Municipal Corporation. 

The trial court, after the conclusion of the court, the second respondent convicted under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act and the court sentenced him with six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000.Indignant by that order, the second respondent-accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Delhi. The court by an order and judgment dated 23.03.2004 dismissed the appeal by holding that there was no instability in the order passed by the trial court.  

At the time of arguments, the advocate for the accused submitted before the high court did not wish to challenge the conviction on merits and stated it fit a case of the accused to be admitted to the benefits of POB Act on the condition that the accused suffer trail for 12 years in the lower courts and remained in jail for three days. The high court wide its order dated 26.03.2004 held that the accused faced the agony of trial g for 12 years. Afterword that the accused has already undergone some period in custody. The High Court also observed that there is no allegation that the petitioner-accused is a previously convicted and it further held that the sentence of imprisonment and fine as awarded to him was set aside.            

ISSUES

In this case here two questions are raises for consideration of the court:

“1. Whether the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused respondent without calling for a report from the Authorities relating to the conduct of the respondents as per Section 4 of the Act.

2. Whether the High Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment in view of the fact that the respondent has been convicted in another Criminal case No. 202 of 1997 by the trial Court, New Delhi.” 

ARGUMENTS

In sub-section (2) of the section 4 is mandatory and consideration of the report of the Probationer Officer is a condition precedent to the release of the accused as reported in the case of State V. Naguesh G. Shet Govenkar and Anr. AIR (1970) Goa 49 and a release without such a report would, therefore, be illegal.

In the case of Ram Singh and Ors. V. State of Haryana, [1971] 3 SCC 914, a bench of two Judges of this Court in paragraph 16 of the judgement observed as under:

 “Counsel for the applications invoked the application of publication of the Offenders Act. Sections 4 and 6 of the Act indicate the procedure requiring the court to call for a report from the Probation Officer and consideration of the report and any other information available relating to the character and mental condition of the offender. These facts are of the Offenders Act. This plea cannot be entertained in this court.”    

JUDGEMENT

In this case the accused granted leave judgment order passed by the High Court Delhi. The accused get the benefits under the Act. The leave granted to the accused under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.Municipal Corporation of Delhi accused against judgment and final order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the High Court Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.185 of 2004.    

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1716348/

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=005002045000&CaseId=005002045000

Written by simran shaw an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin