BINDAL SYNTHETICS PVT.LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Gupta for the Applicant and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, whereas learned advocate Mr. Masoom K. Shah for Respondent nos. 3 to 14. Perused the record. Petitioner is the original complainant, whereas Respondent nos. 3 to 14 are original accused before 7th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Inquiry Case No.206 of 2014. Such criminal case is filed by the present petitioner as a complainant under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The sum and substance of the complaint filed by the petitioner - complainant is to the effect that private respondents have committed the offence under the aforesaid Sections by disclosing false information in the sale -deed while selling the property in question in as much as though the land was not sanctioned for non -agricultural purpose by the Revenue Authorities. It was stated in the sale -deed that the land is non -agricultural and therefore, the petitioner has to spend huge amount and to pay fine as well as charges for utilization of agricultural land for commercial and industrial activities.

(3.) To substantiate their submissions, the petitioner has produced a bunch of documents, which is taken on record and on perusal of such documents so also submission by the petitioner, it transpires that by registered sale -deed executed on 22.06.1990, private respondents have agreed to sell the land in question being land of village Saijpur Gopalpur bearing Survey No. 123/2 to one M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Ashokkumar Hariprasad Agrawal (Gupta). For the purpose agreement to sale was executed and registered on the same day. Perusal of such agreement to sale specifically confirms that, in fact, while executing such agreement to sale, the private respondents have categorically confirmed that the land in question is being used for agricultural purpose and it is to be converted for non - agricultural purpose at the cost of the seller i.e. private respondents herein, and for the purpose if any amount is to be paid to the government or any expense for such conversation, then it is to be borne by the seller and once the land has been converted for non -agricultural purpose then sellers have to execute a sale -deed in favour of the purchaser. The bunch of documents also shows one permission for construction on the land in question, which is dated 02.10.1994. However, thereafter, when actual sale -deed was executed on 03.05.1991 in favour of the same purchaser namely, M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. by private respondents amongst whom atleast two persons are absolutely illiterate since they have put their thumb impression on such sale agreement whereas in sale - deed it is disclosed that the land in question is being utilized for processing house and factory i.e. for non -agricultural purpose by the purchaser from 22.06.1990 i.e. date of agreement to sale, and that since then the land is not used for agricultural purpose and therefore, the sale -deed is to be created for non -agricultural land and hence, there is no question of restriction of sale transaction under the Tenancy Act. Such disclosure is alleged to be considered as commission of offence under Section 420 contending that though land has never been approved for non -agricultural purpose, it is so stated in the sale -deed and thereby private respondents have committed offence under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code.