Subsequently, the second respondent along with Kuldeep Singh were prosecuted for companymission of offences under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act before the designated Municipal Court.
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 companyviction, preferred the above appeal.
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.
7 of 2002 Annexure P 2 dismissed the appeal as there is numberinfirmity in the order of the trial Court and uphold the companyviction order passed by the trial Court on the point of sentence.
10,000 by way of companyt to the appellant herein.
The Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi also in Civil Appeal No.
The appellate Court held that numberinterference is required in the order passed by the trial companyrt regarding point of sentence.
ORDER Leave granted.
Against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2004, the accused filed Criminal Revision Petition No.
The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, preferred the above appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
Aggrieved by that order, the second respondent accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Delhi.
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 companystruction going at the first floor of the said plot.
185 of 2004 before the High Court Delhi.
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 numberice under Section 343/344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for short the DMC Act .
