Delhi Development Authority vs Vandana Gupta

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2023 INSC 673 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389/2011

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

VANDANA GUPTA ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This appeal is at the instance of the Delhi Development

Authority (for short, “the DDA”) and is directed against the

impugned order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi

in the Criminal Leave Petition No. 83 of 2007 filed by the

appellant by which the High Court declined to grant leave to appeal

against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial

court in the Criminal Case No. 103 of 2002 on the file of the

Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

It appears from the materials on record that a complaint came

to be lodged by the appellant – DDA against the company by name -

M/s Dhampur Alco Chem. Ltd. (original accused No.1) and four of its

Directors. The complaint was lodged under Section 14 read with

Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short “Act,

1957”). It is the case of the appellant – DDA that the company and Signature Not Verified

its Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI directors started using the premises bearing House No. 24 Date: 2023.08.05 11:23:56 IST Reason:

situated at School Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi, contrary to the

1 purpose for which the original plan was sanctioned. To put the

accused persons for trial, sanction was also obtained under Section

49 of the Act, 1957 vide order dated 27.02.2002. The Metropolitan

Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint lodged by the

appellant – DDA, which ultimately came to be registered as the

Criminal Case No. 103 of 2022. In the trial, the company and two of

its directors came to be convicted for the alleged offence, whereas

the respondents came to be acquitted.

The appellant – DDA, feeling aggrieved by the order of

acquittal passed by the trial court, went to the High Court and

prayed for leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). The High Court

declined to grant leave.

In the circumstances referred to above, the appellant – DDA

has come up before this Court by way of the present appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

and having gone through the materials on record, we see no error,

much less any error of law, in the impugned order passed by the

High Court declining to grant leave to appeal.

The finding of fact recorded by the trial court with regard

to the two directors who came to be acquitted is that there was

nothing on record to indicate that they were in charge of the day-

to-day affairs/management of the company. It is required to be

noted that it is the company as a legal entity which was sought to

be prosecuted, and the directors were prosecuted by virtue of their

vicarious liability under Section 32 of the Act, 1957. It appears

2 that the two directors (respondents herein), who came to be

acquitted were in a position to lead evidence to establish that

they were not in day to day affairs/management of the company.

In the result, the present appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J. (J.B. PARDIWALA)

..................J. (MANOJ MISRA) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 02, 2023.

3