LexM.C.D. versus STATE OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M.C.D. v. STATE OF DELHI AND ANR. APRIL 29, 2005 B [ASHOK BHAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 : Section 4-Releasing of an accused on probation-Requirements for- C Report of Probationary Officer-If mandatory-Held, while extending the benefit, disc~etion of the court has to be exercised having regard to circumstances in which the crime was committed, the age, character and antecedents of the offender-Consideration of report of Probationary Officer is mandatory-On facts, accused, a builder, having been convicted by trial D court under Sections 332 and 461 of MCD Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and not disclosing the fact of his previous conviction and sentence for similar offence, High Court was not right in extending the benefit to the accused without giving opportunity to MCD to file Counter Affidavit-Order of High Court set aside-Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957-Sections 332 and 461. E F State v. Naguesh G. Shel Govenkar and Anr., AIR (1970) Goa 49; R. Mahalingam v •. G. Padmavathi and Anr., (1979) Crl. LJ, NOC 20 (Mad.), approved. Ram Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1197113 SCC 914, relied on. Fraud on Court-Accused claiming benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act-Not disclosing his previous conviction and sentence for similar offence-Held, would be guilty of playing fraud on court as well as on opposite party-Conduct of accused is strongly disapproved-Order of High Court extending him the benefit of Section 4 set aside-Accused to· pay cost to 0 appellant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi Act, 1957-Sections 332 and 461- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Section 4. H CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 660 Qf 2005. 1010 --- -- M.C.D. v. ST A TE OF DELHI 1011 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.2004 of the Delhi High Court A in Crl.R.P. No. 185 of 2004. Ashwani Kumar, Sanjeev Sen and Praveen Swarup with him for the Appellant. Jaspal Singh, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Arun Kumar Beriwal, Vikash B Sharma and Mrs. Anil Katiyar with him for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, aggrieved against the judgment and final order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the High Court Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 185 of 2004 by which order the High Court gave the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as "POB Act") to the second respondent - Gurcharan c Singh. but maintained the conviction, preferred the above appeal. D The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as under : One Mr. M.K. Verma (PW-4), Junior Engineer, Civil Line Zone, visited 189 Prem Gali, Punja Sharif, Mori Gate where he found unauthorized construction going at the first floor of the said plot. F .l.R. was prepared on . E the report of Mr. M.K. Verma who forwarded the F.I.R. before Zonal Engineer, who ordered to issue notice under Section 343/344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the "DMC Act"). Subsequently, the second respondent along with Kuldeep Singh were prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act before the designated F Municipal Court. The trial Court, after the conclusion of the trial, convicted the second respondent under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000 (Annexure P-1). G Aggrieved by that order, the second respondent-accused filed an appeal ...._ before the Sessions Court, Delhi. The said Court by an order and judgment dated 23.3.2004 dismissed the appeal by holding that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court (Annexure P-2). H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A Against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2004, the accused filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 185 of 2004 before the High Court Delhi. At the time of arguments, the advocate for the accused submitted before the High Court that the accused did not wish to challenge the conviction on merits and stated it a fit case of accused to be admitted to the benefit of POB B Act on the ground that the accused faced trial for 12 years in the lower courts and remained in jail for three days. The High Court vide its order dated 26.3.2004 held that the accused suffered the agony of trial lasting for 12 years. Besides that h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.