P YAGNANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A.6 in C.C. No. 103 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, West Godavari District, filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420,- 468 -and 477 A read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 69 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) The petitioner worked as Sub-Registrar at Bhimavaram during the year 1995. The Government of Andhra Pradesh re-fixed the market value of the lands with effect from 1-4-1995. The documents that were executed prior to 31-3-1995 could be presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar within four months from the date of execution. The application of existing market value was allowed and benefits were given to the individuals. 31-3-1995 is the cut-off date to avail the benefits of old market value, which could be doubted if purchase of the stamps were from 1-4-1995 onwards. Guidelines were issued from time to time by the authorities of Registration and Stamps Department regarding the crucial period for verification of stamps. Despite the instructions, the petitioner along with other accused i.e. stamp vendors, Sub-registrars and document writers conspired together to gain monetary benefit, out of the enhancement of-market value of the properties and in pursuance of their conspiracy, accused stamp vendors have indulged in selling the stamps with ante-dates with connivance of Sub-Registrars and document writers. The petitioner and other sub-registrars, whose duty is to verify and scrutinize the genuineness of stamps, the date of entry of the sales register, the date of purchase of stamps from the sub-treasury office and the dates of sales to the parties concerned, failed to discharge their legitimate duties and actively connived with the concerned stamp vendors and document writers with an intention to effect wrongful gain to themselves registered the documents during the period from 1-4-1995 onwards by abusing their official position as public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage to themselves, it resulted in wrongful gain to themselves and huge loss of revenue to the Government and thereby cheated the public and the Government.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is a public servant and as he failed to discharge the official duties properly by scrutinizing the documents -whether they were purchased prior to 1-4-1995, a sanction from the Government is required as contemplated under Sections 197 of Cr. P.C. and 70 of Stamps Act. Since no sanction order was obtained from the Government to prosecute the petitioner, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.