The sessions court, which discharged the accused of the offences under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, said "it was gross abuse of process of law" by the civic agency, as it sought a compliance report within six weeks and directed that the matter be fixed for Action Taken Report.
The court's order came in a case in which one Ashok Saran was challaned in 2004 for allegedly running petrol pump since 1961 without a factory licence, following which charges were framed against him under the DMC Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The judge further said, "For launching a frivolous prosecution against petitioner and making him face trial all these years, the Commissioner MCD(North) shall make an inquiry into the matter and shall fix the responsibility of the erring MCD officials for initiating motivated prosecution against him, so that this amount of Rs 20,000 could be recovered from their salaries."
the petitioner, it was in knowledge of MCD since 1980 when he was issued licence to store non-dangerous petroleum products.
"It can be safely said after 1980 till 2004 for 24 years, they (MCD) cannot just say they were not having the knowledge or they can just feign ignorance that the petrol pump was simply not existing or was not within their knowledge....
"Ashok Saran has stated that since 1961 MCD has been fully aware about the petrol pump and infact they had a credit account with the said petrol pump and had been regularly drawing supplies on credit for which they had also regularly made payment," it said.
"The argument of the MCD counsel is totally preposterous, as it is hard to imagine that any petrol pump can be run without the use of electricity, one is yet to see a petrol pump being operated by bullock carts. As per documents of the MCD itself, the said petrol pump is in existence since 1961.
"Therefore it can be imagined that the electricity must have been used to run the petrol pump even at that time, as the electricity supply in Delhi can be said to be quite ancient in time and the accused himself had been getting his licence renewed," it said.
Saran had also questioned the delay in taking cognisance of offences against him as over 20 years had lapsed.
"Trial court clearly fell in error in dismissing the application of the petitioner under DMC Act, whereby he had questioned limitation for taking the cognisance of offence(s) against him....
"Further as per Article 21 of the Constitution, nobody can be deprived of his life and liberty except by process established by law, as cognisance was barred by limitation, therefore taking of cognisance and subsequent trial/ summoning of accused is not tenable in law," the judge said, while discharging the accused.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
