IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate under Section 469 of DMC Act, 1957, a Metropolitan Magistrate can take cognizance and try an accused for commission of an offence punishable under the DMC Act, 1957.

ORDER

Dr. A. S. Anand. J.- Special leave granted.

2. The only question involved in this case is whether in the absence of the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate can take cognizance and try an accused for commission of an offence punishable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ?

3. The circumstances in which this question has arisen need a brief notice at the thresh-hold.

4. On 6.6.1989, a Junior Engineer of the complainant-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a report against the appellant alleging unauthorised construction of roof and a stair-case on the ground floor of the appellant s property situate at 1535-1537, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The appellant apprehending demolition of his house, filed Civil Suit No. 616 of 1989 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi, contending inter alia-that the replacement of the roof and the alleged repairs/alterations were permissible under the building bye-laws and required no formal order of sanction and, therefore, the appellant could not be said to have carried out any unauthorised construction and sought an injunction against Respondent No. 1 restraining it from demolishing the alleged unauthorised construction . After contest, the suit was decrees. It was found that notice for demolition had not been properly served. Respondent No. 1 was restrained from demolishing the property of the appellant except "in due process of law". The Junior Engineer of respondent No. 1 filed three more reports on 21.8.1989, 4.9.1989 and 17.11.1989 alleging further unauthorised constructions in the said property by the appellant. On the basis of those reports, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 1 on 17th November, 1989 filed a criminal complaint (Case No. 533 of 1989) under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter the Act ) against the appellant in the Court of Sh. R.S. Khanna, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The appellant moved two applications before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi-one for the stay of crininal proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit and the second seeking return of the complaint in the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try him for the offence under Section 332 read with Section 461 of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 469 of the Act and in the absence of any Notification conferring powers of Municipal Magistrates on the Metropolitan Magistrates. Both the applications were rejected on 26th February, 1991. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that the plea of the appellant that the court had no jurisdiction to try the offence was not maintainable and there was no justification for staying the criminal proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit as the scope of the suit and the criminal complaint was different. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court of Delhi which was summarily dismissed on 26th May, 1991. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an offence under the Act can only be tried by a Municipal Magistrate appointed under the Act and a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising general jurisdiction has no authority to take cognizance of an offence under the Act and try any person accused of an offence under the Act. It was argued that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate fell in error in rejecting the applications and the High Court also failed to appreciate the importance of the question involved and erroneously dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition in limine by a non-speaking order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent argued with equal vehemence that in the absence of appointment of Municipal Magistrates under the Act, jurisdiction to try "offences under other laws" vested in the Metropolitan Magistrates and the appellant was rightly put on trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

7. We do find some substance