The punishment for the offence for which the landlord was convicted extends to one month imprisonment with a provision also for a maximum six-month jail term.
A landlord’s failure to get the police verification of his tenant done led to his conviction by a Delhi court which, however, spared him a jail term. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Jitendra Singh while convicting Niranjan Mishra, a resident of Pandav Nagar in East Delhi, said he was only admonishing him taking note of the fact that he belonged to the “poor strata of the society”. The tenant was living at Mishra’s home for about four years, it was stated.
The punishment for the offence for which the landlord was convicted extends to one month imprisonment with a provision also for a maximum six-month jail term. The court said nothing substantial in favour of the accused came on record despite all the parties being cross examined for him.
“Prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence punishable under section 188 IPC (Indian Penal Code) against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is hereby convicted for said offence,” the court held yesterday.
It further said the prosecution has successfully brought on record that the accused had not complied with law and violated the order of concerned Additional Commissioner of Police (ACP) by not submitting the tenant verification form at the police station.
A case was filed under section 188 of the IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) against the landlord in January this year.
Under this section, if the disobedience leads to obstruction, annoyance or injury to a lawfully employed person then the convict would be punished with a jail term extending to one month or a fine of Rs 200 or both.
If the consequence of the disobedience leads to danger to human life, health or safety or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, then the punishment would entail jail term of six months, fine of Rs 1,000 or both.
The complaint was filed by Head Constable Raj Kumar who, while on his patrolling and tenant verification duty, found that Mishra had not got the police verification of his tenant. The court also held that no previous conviction has been alleged or proved against Mishra.
“Convict is having a family to support. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused belongs to the poor strata of the society, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be met if the convict is admonished,” the court said.
Kumar in his testimony had said that when he had asked the landlord to produce the documents regarding police verification of the tenant, Mishra had told him he had not got this done. “Thereafter I made inquiries from tenant Jagdish and he told me that he had been residing in the said house for the last about four years but his police verification has not been got done,” he said.
Mishra had professed his innocence, claiming he was not aware of the rules concerned.