RATTAN SINGH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC against the order dated 22.05.2004 passed by the learned ASJ, dismissing the revision petition preferred by him against an order dated 07.12.2002 passed by the learned ACMM, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 179/2002 filed by the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 276AB read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act).

(2.) In a nutshell, the allegation in the complaint filed by the Respondent is that a statement in form No. 37-I was filed by accused No. 3 to 6 and one Smt. Meena Mittal with the appropriate authority under Section 269UC of the Act, in respect of Industrial plot No. 52, Sector VI, Faridabad. In the course of enquiry, it transpired that accused No. 3 to 6, who have not been impleaded by the Petitioner in present petition, had already entered into an agreement to sell the same plot to the Petitioner/accused No. 7 on 03.04.1996 for a sum of '80 lacs. It is the case of the Respondent that Section 269UC of the Act mandates that no transfer exceeding the prescribed limit, in relation to any immovable property, can be made by way of a sale or exchange or lease for a term of not less than 12 years and no possession of such a property can be allowed to be taken or retained in part performance of the contract covered under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, unless an agreement for transfer is entered into amongst the parties at least four months before the intended date of transfer, reduced into writing in the form of statement, as laid down in Form No. 37-I of the Act, by each or either of the parties to such a transfer on behalf of the other, and furnished in duplicate to the appropriate authority. As per the Respondent, the aforesaid prescribed procedure was not followed by accused No. 3 to 6 or by the Petitioner/accused No. 7, in respect of the agreement to sell entered into by them on 03.04.1996. As a result, the aforesaid complaint was filed by the Respondent department in the year 2002, against the Petitioner/accused No. 7/purchaser and accused No. 3 to 6/sellers, for the violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 269UC of the Act.

(3.) Summoning order was issued by the learned ACMM to the accused on the aforesaid complaint. The Petitioner/accused No. 7 filed an application in the court of the learned ACMM, praying inter alia for recall of the summoning order and for his discharge in the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint. In the said application, it was contended by the Petitioner that he had made part payment of '24,17,660/- to accused No. 3 to 6, the sellers as on 14.09.1998 and that he had also given Form 37-I to them, duly signed by him, to get the income tax clearance but they kept deferring the matter on one pretext or the other. Since the sellers failed to perform their part of the obligations under the contract, the agreement did not fructify into a sale and later on, the Petitioner came to know that accused No. 3 to 6 had sold the property in question to one Smt. Meena Mittal and Shri Ashok Kumar Mittal on 05.06.1996. The second argument urged on behalf of the Petitioner was that the land, subject matter of the complaint, was situated at Faridabad and hence, Delhi Courts did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was also alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation.