SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Mani Shandly – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Temperance is the hallmark of judicial authority. The exercise of judicial authority is not show of strength but a duty to be performed with humility and yet firmness. This cardinal principle seems to have been lost while passing orders in the present case.
2. The petitioners, both ladies, have been charged under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the MCD on the allegation of misuse of property consisting ground floor of property bearing No. B-23, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi in the capacity of the owner/occupier. The criminal complaint No. 1291/2001 is filed by the MCD, which was pending in the Court of the learned MM. The offence is a bailable offence punishable with simple imprisonment, which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000.00 or with both. It is the case of the petitioners that they were only employees working in the said premises at the relevant time and had been falsely implicated on the inspection carried out since the owner/accused No. 1 was not present in the premises. The complaint was filed in the year 2001 and the misuse is stated to
Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 251
Naresh Kumar v. State 131 (2006) DLT 678
Puneet Singh Chauhan and Anr. v. State and Anr. 107 (2003) DLT 220
Court in Court on its own motion v. CBI 2004 (72) DRJ 629
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.