P MOHAMMED HASAN Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/accused No. 1 to 5 have filed the above Criminal Original petition No. 23710 of 2007 to call for the records and quash the entire proceedings in C. C. No. 411 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, gudiyatham.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant has filed the complaint against the petitioners on an alleged offence under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989, for violation of provision under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act. The ingredients of the complaint is that the accused had purchased the schedule mentioned property, mentioned in the complaint, by means of two separate registered sale deeds dated 21. 09. 2000 and 09. 10. 2000 under document No. 755 of 2000 and 806 of 2000 respectively by adopting the value for the same as agricultural land. But in the said property, buildings had already been constructed. Later on, it has come to the notice of the registration department, that the schedule mentioned property is not an agricultural land but it is a residential area with a RCC building already constructed therein on the date of registration of the Sale deeds.

(3.) THE accused herein had purposely and deliberately suppressed the said material fact of existence of the said building already constructed in the schedule mentioned properties with the dishonest intention to evade the Stamp duty payable for registering the sale deeds. The schedule mentioned property ought to have been valued and registered only on square Feet rate and not as agricultural land in cent or acre rate. The accused purchased the said schedule mentioned properties showing the lesser consideration by not disclosing the nature of the land and RCC building, only with the intention of evading stamp duty including registration fees. By suppression of facts, the accused have evaded payment of Stamp Duty and registration fees to the tune of Rs. 13,12,269/-and thereby they intentionally defrauded the Government to sustain the said revenue loss. Hence, the complainant has filed the said complaint. Supporting the complaint, 9 witnesses are mentioned and 6 documents have been furnished.