Puda Sas Nagar vs Kaka Singh on 3 November, 2008

                                                                 1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                    Crl. Misc. No. 574-MA of 2006

                            Date of Decision: November 03, 2008


PUDA SAS Nagar
                                                       ... Appellant
                              Versus

Kaka Singh.
                                                     ... Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.

Present:    None for the parties.


S.D. Anand, J.

Trial Court records (requisitioned in terms of order

dated 17.05.2007) perused.

Appellant – PUDA has filed the present plea to obtain

invalidation of the finding of exoneration recorded by the learned

Trial Magistrate in favour of the respondent – accused.

The appellant had launched a prosecution against the

respondent – accused, for commission of offences under the

Punjab Regulation Colonies Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act), on an allegation that the respondent – accused had

unauthorisedly carved out plots in violation of the provisions of the

Act. In support of the finding of exoneration, the learned Trial

Magistrate recorded the following reasoning:

“After the close perusal of the judicial file and
considering the arguments adduced by the learned
Crl. Misc. No. 574-MA of 2006 2

APP for the State and the learned defence counsel. It
is apparent from the file that the accused Naurang
Singh deceased and Kaka Singh had been hauled up
in the present FIR No. 74 of 1996 under Section 11(1)
of Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act and after the
presentation of the challan they were arrested under
section 36(1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property
Regulation Act, 1995 wherein no person could sell
apartment or plot exceeding 1000 square meter without
the permission of the Punjab Government……….. The
sale deed proved by the prosecution are three in
number which had been duly proved by PW.4 Jagroop
Singh as Ex.P.4/A and Ex.PB by PW.5 and Colonel
Randhir Singh PW.8 proved as Ex.PW.8/A. Although
all these exhibited documents had been objected to by
the learned defence counsel but in defence no such
evidence had been adduced by the learned defence
counsel to contradict or controvert the legality, validity
and genuineness of these documents. It is worth
mentioning here that two of the sale deeds which had
been exhibited as Ex.PB and Ex.PW.8/A had been
executed by Naurang Singh and only one sale deed
Ex.PW.4/A in favour of Jagroop Singh had been
executed jointly by Kaka Singh and Naurang Singh. In
order to establish the joint liability of the accused Kaka
Singh and Naurang Singh, the jamabandies had
neither been p[roved nor exhibited……… In the
absence of any revenue record the question of joint
liability of Kaka Singh does not arise. From the perusal
of the evidence there is only one sale deed Ex.PW.4/A
which reflects that 1 kanals 8 marla of land had been
jointly sold by Kaka Singh and Naurang Singh to
Jagroop Singh PW.4 which after due clarification
comes out to 847 square yards, coming out to 708.199
Crl. Misc. No. 574-MA of 2006 3

square meter which is much less than the prescribed
area 1000 square meter as per the Punjab Apartment
and Property Regulation Act, 1995…….it did not prove
and establish the sale of land measuring more than
1000 square meter by the accused Kaka Singh.
Thirdly no record had been placed on the file along with
these reports to prove and establish the joint liability of
Kaka Singh and Naurang Singh being co-owners.
Resultantly, in the absence of link evidence and on the
ground of serious infirmities as discussed above, there
are sufficient grounds to grant benefit of doubt to
accused Kaka Singh for the charge framed against
him.”

The line of reasoning recorded by the learned Trial

Court, in holding the inapplicability of the provisions of the Act, is in

order and is affirmed.

I have examined the impugned finding on the touch

stone of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh

Babulal vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 2035, Jaswant Singh

vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833 and Main Pal vs. State

of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 2158 for adjudication of a such like

controversy.

In that foregoing discussion, I do not find it would be a

fit case for the grant of leave to appeal to the appellant against the

impugned finding of acquittal.

Dismissed.

November 03, 2008                                       ( S.D. Anand )
vkd                                                            Judge