Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2264 (RAJ)

Mool Shankar Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2006-07-19

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.08.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short the revisional Court) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (in short the trial Court) was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the non-petitioner Municipal Board, Jaisalmer. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been residing at United States of America Since 1990 and he is not the owner of Hotel Deepak. He has invited my attention to Form No. 3 issued under the provisions of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 for the period from 1987 to 1991 and 1993 to 2002 wherein the Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Jodhpur has shown name of Panna Lal Vyas as the owner of he said hotel. Learned Counsel submitted that prior to 1984, though the petitioner was the owner of the Hotel Deepak but he transferred the ownership in favour of non Petitioner No. 3 Panna Lal Vyas and thereafter, he went to the USA and as such as on date when the complaint was filed, the petitioner was not the owner of the said hotel. Learned Counsel also stated that from a bare look at the complaint filed by the complainant Moola Ram Lohiya, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jaisalmer it is clear that notice under the provisions of Hotel, Restaurant, Backery, Mithai, Paan etc. Shop Control and Regulation Matters Bye Laws, 1970 (for short the Bye laws of 1970) was issued to the non-petitioner Panna Lal alleging that he had violated the provisions of the said Regulations. 4. On a close scrutiny of the material available on record, in my view, neither the trial Court nor the revisional Court examined the matter in the light as to who is the owner of the said hotel and who has violated the provisions of the said Regulations. A person who had not been in the country since 1990 cannot be said to have violated the provisions of the Bye Laws of 1970 or the Bye Laws framed by the Municipal Board. A person who had not been in the country since 1990 cannot be said to have violated the provisions of the Bye Laws of 1970 or the Bye Laws framed by the Municipal Board. In the circumstances, therefore, the complaint as such does not disclose an offence qua the petitioner. However, from the material available, prima facie offence under Section 22 of the Bye Laws of 1970 is made out against Non-petitioner No. 3. In these circumstances, allowing the respondent-complainant to continue the proceeding qua the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of the Court as also it would cause serious miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed, the complaint qua the petitioner and the proceedings taken thereunder in pursuance of the complaint stand quashed. 6. The stay petition stands disposed of .