ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 8th April, 1991 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (MM) in Case No. 126/NGR/89 by which respondent Sh. Prakash was acquitted of the offences under Section 332 read with 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act). 2. One Sh. H.L. Rana, Junior Engineer (Building), Najafgarh Zone, was stated to have done a routine checking on 28th December, 1988 in the area of Uggar Sain Park on Dichau Road, Najafgarh. He stated to have found unauthorized construction of five shops "on one ground floor of a property situated near Uggar Sain Park at Dichau Road, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi." On the basis that the respondent Sh. Prakash was the "owner/ builder" of the said property, a prosecution was launched against him after obtaining sanction in terms of the Act. 3. The prosecution examined Sh. H.L. Rana as PW1 and certain other officials of the MCD for proving the obtaining of sanction. 4. The learned MM by his judgment dated 8th April, 1991 held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was either the owner or the builder of the property in question; that PW1 Sh. Rana had simply acted on the disclosure made by the accused but had not collected any other evidence to independently establish either the ownership or the connection of the accused with the premises in question. On the basis that the prosecution had failed to show the connection of the accused with the premises in question, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused and he was acquitted. 5. Ms. Geeta Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the MCD assails the order of the learned MM by pointing out that the respondent had nowhere denied that he was not the resident of the premises in question; that notices sent to him at the address had in fact been served; that at one stage of the proceedings when a surety was offered by him the accused gave his address no different from the address where the property is located and that accordingly the learned trial Court was in error in concluding that there was no connection of the accused to the property in question. 6. 6. Since one important question in the case is the commission of the offence under Section 332 of DMC Act, a reference may be made to it as under: "332. Prohibition of building without sanction.-No person shall erect or commence to erect any building, or execute any of the works specified in Section 334 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, not otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the bye-laws made under this Act in relation to the erection of buildings or execution of works." It is clear from a plain reading of the provision that in order that a person may be proved guilty of having committed the offence mentioned therein, it will have to be proved that such person either "erected" or "commenced to erect" any building or any works without the previous sanction or in a manner not authorised by the Act or bye-laws. What is critical is that the person who is sought to be found guilty should himself have either erected or commenced to erect the unauthorized construction. The mere presence of a person at the spot may not satisfy this requirement. 7. This Court has carefully perused the deposition of PW1, Sh. H.L. Rana on whose report the prosecution was launched. He categorically states that on 28th December, 1988 when he went to the premises in question "at the time of inspection, two Mistris (masons) and four Beldars (labourers) were present at the work site." In the cross-examination he says "1 was alone at the site in dispute at the time of inspection and reached the spot at 11.00 a.m." He further says that "1 cannot say whether any neighbour or public persons were present or not. The accused present in the Court himself told that I am the owner of the shop in question. I did not see the ownership record as we never used to see." He further adds in his cross-examination that he prepared the report at site and that "I did not ask any person to be a witness to my report." He admits to have visited the site again on the next day but says that no one met him on that date. 8. 8. The examination of the above evidence does not establish that in fact it was the respondent who was found erecting or causing to erect the unauthorized construction of the five shops in question. The learned MM has rightly doubted the credibility of Sh. H.L. Rana, PW1 who appears to have not made any independent inquiry. His statement that the accused himself admitted his ownership is self-serving and unreliable. This being a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the respondent who erected or commenced to erect the unauthorized construction. The MCD may be right in its contention that it is not necessary that such person should himself be the owner or the builder, certainly such person must be the one who has either erected or caused to erect the unauthorized construction. That is the critical link which is missing in the case. The prosecution has failed to show that it is the accused who was either found erecting or causing to erect the alleged unauthorized construction. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned MM in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.