R2126 (SC), 2005 (30 )AIC98 (S.C. ), AIR2005 SC 2658 , 2005 (52 ) ACC 484 , 2005 ((3) )ALT(Cri)72 , 2005 (3 )ALT(Cri)72 , II (2005 )CCR226 (SC ), 2005 CriLJ3077 , 2005 (2 )Crimes251 (SC ), 120 (2005 )DLT1 (SC ), 2005 INSC 239 , JT2005 (11 )SC 106 , 2005 (3 )RCR(Criminal)13 , (2005 )4 SCC605 , [2005 ]3 SCR1010 , ,MANU/SC/0376/2005
Ashok Bhan#A.R. Lakshmanan#279SC2050Judgment/OrderACR#AIC#AIR#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALT (Criminal)#ALT (Criminal)#CCR#CriLJ#Crimes#DLT#INSC#JT#MANU#RCR (Criminal)#SCC#SCRSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Probation system,Punishments,Indian Penal Code28256,33677,33678,33666,33809,16839,28258 -->
MANU/SC/0376/2005
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5754 of 2004)
Decided On: 29.04.2005
Appellants: M.C.D. Vs. Respondent: State of Delhi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Bhan and A.R. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. 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 Singh but maintained the conviction, preferred the above appeal.
3. 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.I.R. was prepared on 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 Municipal Court.
4. 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).
5. 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).
6. 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 Act on the ground that the accused faced trial........