Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CA No. 88/2025 Prateek Narang Vs. State Page No.1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, LD. ASJ-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 88/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-004033-2025
Shri Prateek Narang
S/o Shri Gulshan Narang
R/o D-1, Punjabi Basti,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
…. Appellant
Versus
State
Through the SHO
Punjabi Bagh Police Station,
New Delhi-110026
Respondent
Date of Institution : 15.10.2024
Date of Judgment : 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT
ORDER ON APPEAL U/S 415(3) OF BNSS, 2023 AGAINST
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 PASSED BY
THE COURT OF LD. MM (EVENING COURT NO.5) VIDE
DD NO.105 DATED 02.01.2024 U/S 28/112 DP ACT, PS
PUNJABI BAGH, DELHI.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed by the
appellant against the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 passed by
ld. MM (Evening Court No.5) whereby a fine of Rs.50/- was
-- 1 of 5 --
CA No. 88/2025 Prateek Narang Vs. State Page No.2 of 5
imposed upon the appellant and directions were issued to the
SHO concerned to file the closure report of Eating House.
2. That, the brief material facts to decide the instant appeal
are that on dated 02.01.2024 at about 08.49 pm Ct. Antil when he
was on patrolling he reached at The Bake Brother Resturent,
Shop No.132, Pocket-II, Paschim Puri, Club Road Delhi and met
owner of said Restaurant and asked him to produce the licence
and the owner of that cafe namely Prateek Narang S/o Shri
Gulshan Narang was found to run the said eating house without
any license and he was booked u/s 28/112 DP Act and the owner
of that Restaurant was bound down to appear in the court. That,
notice was issued to Sh. Prateek Narang by the Evening Court
No.5 and he had appeared before the court and was sentenced to
pay Rs.50/- and accused was directed to close the said Eating
House (The Bake Brothers Resturent) and report was also called
from SHO concerned to file the closure report of that Eating
House and aggrieved against the said order, the instant appeal has
been filed on the following grounds :-
(a) That, the ld. Trial court has passed the order without
appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on
record.
(b) That, the appellant had appeared before the trial court and he
had no knowledge about the court proceedings, he was granted
no opportunity to speak or put-forth his case, he was also not
granted any legal aid or advocate to understand the nature of
proceedings and he was simply told to pay a fine and that his
-- 2 of 5 --
CA No. 88/2025 Prateek Narang Vs. State Page No.3 of 5
shop will be shut down. The appellant/petitioner also did not
know about the nature and consequences of plead guilty of the
offence.
(b) That, the ld. Court has proceeded in arbitrary manner by
mentioning in the impugned order that appellant has pleaded
guilty and accusation has been explained. However, no such
explanation of accusation took place and the appellant never
pleaded guilty before the trial court.
(c) That, the appellant has been denied an opportunity to engage
an advocate and a fair trial by the Trial Court.
(d) That, the ld. Trial court has passed the order of sealing
without application of judicial mind.
(e) Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant does not require
license under Section 28 and 112 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 as
appellant only hand over the packed food items to the delivery
persons or customers for delivery and appellant has already
obtained health trade license from MCD as well as FSSAI license
to run a food delivery outlet. It is further submitted that appellant
is neither running a eating house nor running a place of
entertainment and therefore, he is not covered under Section 112
of Delhi Police Act, 1978.
3. By way of the present appeal, it is prayed that the
impugned order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the court of Sh. Dev
Saroha, Ld. MM, Evening Court No.5 in the aforesaid Kalandra
vide DD No.105 u/s 28/112 DP Act may kindly be set aside and
-- 3 of 5 --
CA No. 88/2025 Prateek Narang Vs. State Page No.4 of 5
directions may kindly be issued to the SHO concerned to de-seal
the Eating House i.e. The Bake Brothers Resturent.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently opposed the
ground taken by the appellant in this appeal and has submitted
that the appellant plead guilty before the ld. Trial court
voluntarily and without any fear or coercion and on this ground,
he was sentenced and awarded fine of Rs.50/- and there is no
illegality in the impugned order and make a submission that the
appeal may kindly be dismissed.
5. Having heard the submissions made by ld. Addl. PP for the
State as well as ld. Counsel for the appellant and after gone
through the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 and having gone
through the trial court record, this court is of the considered view
that the ld. Trial court has passed the order in haste and the
argument of ld. Counsel for the appellant is that because of some
misunderstanding and upon insisting by the court staff, the
appellant has plead guilty and he was not knowing the
consequences of plead guilty as he was assured by the police
officials that he has to pay fine of Rs.50/- only and the matter
will be solved. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that
had be been aware about the consequences of plead guilty, then,
the appellant would never get recorded his plead guilty
voluntarily.
6. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, since
the appellant is only running a delivery outlet for which he has
already obtained requisite licenses and the impugned order
-- 4 of 5 --
CA No. 88/2025 Prateek Narang Vs. State Page No.5 of 5
passed by the ld. Trial court is having patent irregularity and the
impugned order is a illegal order. Therefore, the same is hereby
set aside with the direction to the ld. Trial court to issue fresh
notice to the appellant/accused to contest the Kalandara of DD
No.105 u/s 28/112 of DP Act in accordance with law only in the
presence of counsel for the appellant. The appeal stands allowed.
Directions are hereby issued to the SHO PS Punjabi Bagh to de-
seal the Eating House 'The Bake Brothers Resturent' within three
days after receipt of copy of this order.
7. The TCR be sent back to the ld. Trial court with copy of
the order on appeal.
8. Copy of this order be given dasti to the party concerned
and one copy be sent to SHO concerned for compliance.
9. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 12th day of August, 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 5 of 5 --