Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHAMAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous 185 of 1981
Decided On : 07/09/1982
DELHI POLICE ACT - SECTION 83 - SECTION 93 - SECTION 97 - CAUSING OBSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC PLACE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - DOCTRINE OF AUTREFOIS ACQUIT - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a vendor, set up his stall on the pavement/footpath/berm of a road belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). He was charged with causing obstruction in a public place under Section 83 of the Delhi Police Act. The petitioner claimed that he had been granted permission by the MCD to park his rehri at the said place and that the police were demanding illegal gratification from him. The petitioner also argued that the doctrine of autrefois acquit barred his prosecution as he had been discharged in similar cases earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was causing obstruction in a public place by setting up his stall on the road berm, which constituted a part of the road. The court also held that the doctrine of autrefois acquit was not applicable as the petitioner had not been acquitted in any of the earlier cases. However, the court quashed the prosecution against the petitioner in the interest of justice, considering his hardships and suffering, and the fact that he had been allotted a permanent site by the MCD.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was causing obstruction in a public place by setting up his stall on the road berm? 2. Whether the doctrine of autrefois acquit barred the petitioner's prosecution? 3. Whether the prosecution against the petitioner should be quashed in the interest of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 83 of the Delhi Police Act prohibits causing obstruction in any street or public place by exposing anything for sale. The petitioner's stall on the road berm constituted obstruction in a public place. 2. The doctrine of autrefois acquit is not applicable where the accused has not been acquitted in any of the earlier cases. The petitioner had been discharged in some cases and convicted in others. 3. The court has inherent powers to quash proceedings in the interest of justice. The petitioner had suffered hardships and was allotted a permanent site by the MCD. Quashing the prosecution would serve the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the prosecution against the petitioner was quashed in all five cases.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a permanent resident of Mahrauli. He has been earning his livelihood as a vendor of cold drinks etc. during summer and groundnut etc. in winter. He used to set up his stall on a rehri near the main gate of Qutab Minar at Mahraiili on the space belonging to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the M. G. D.) He is now facing trial in five cases under Delhi Police Act as detailed below ?
(I) D. D. No. ISA dated 9-3-1981. u/s. 83, 97, Delhi Police Act, P. S. Mehrauli. (ii) D. D. No. 57-A dated 23-3. 1981. U/s. 83, 93 and 97 Delhi Police Act, P. S. Mehrauli. (iii) D. D. No. 8-A dated 13-3-1981 U/s. 83, 93, 97 Delhi Police Act, P. S. Mehrauli. (iv) D. D. No. 11-A dated 1-4-1981. U/s. 83 and 97 Delhi Police Act, P. S. Mehrauli. (v) D. D No. 1-8-A dated 20-3-1981. U/s. 83, 92, 93, 97 Delhi Police Act, P. S. Mehrauli.
( 2 ) THE S. H. O, P. S. Mehrauli, filed five separate Kalandrus (complaints) against the petitioner in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate and the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial. The substance of the accusation in all the five cases is essentially the same, viz. , that the petitioner had set up his stall for selling cold drinks etc. and kept his wooden crates etc. on the thorough-fare in front of the main gate of Qutab Minar and that he was eliciting custom by shouting loudly which caused an obstruction to the passers-by and members of the public. He was advised on all the above- mentioned occasions by the police official concerned to desist from doing so but in vain. Thereupon, his vendibles and other goods were seized by the police and he was arrested under Sections 83, 93 and 97 of the Delhi Police Act. In a couple of cases there is further allegation against him that he was quarrelling with another vendor of cold drinks by the name of Suresh and both of them were not only shouting loudly but they were also exchanging filthy abuses during the course of altercation which was resented by the passers by and the women-folk who happened to pass by were incansed. They were advised to desist from misbehaving but in vain.
( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that he had been selling soft drinks and groundnuts etc. for the last 20 years at the same site and he had been requesting the M. C. D. for grant of a licence for parking his rehri at the aforesaid place. Consequently, the Chairman, Zonal Area Committee, New Delhi South Zone, M. G. D. , granted permission on 12th January, 1978, temporarily till some permanent arrangement was made and he was allotted a permanent site for a stall. The Chairman of the Zonal Area Committee in a letter dated 12thjanuary, 1978, even directed the employees of the MCD not to disturb him. It seems to have had a salutary effect, in that the employees of the MCD did not object to the petitioner s carrying on his trade at that place. It is the further case of the petitioner that the S. H. O. , P. S. Mehrauli respondent No. 3 herein had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 per day for parking his rehri at the said place. He did so through his subordinates but the petitioner refused to pay illegal gratification to the S. H. O. /police officials and, therefore, the police had been involving him in similar cases from time to time. He has specifically adverted to five cases of 1979 in which he was sought to be prosecuted under Section 83 read with Section 97, Delhi Police Act but he was discharged in all those cases by the Metropolitan Magistrate with the observation, "no case is made out". Thus, an allegation of malafides has been levelled against the police officials concerned and it is pointed out that the other vendors of cold drinks etc. had also been parking their rehris near the rehri of the petitioner and he has placed a couple of photographs to substantiate this allegation.
( 4 ) THE respondents have filed an affidavit of Shri Bhim Singh, S. H. O. Police Station Mehrauli, refuting these allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
