SURENDRA KORI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/applicant is in custody with reference to Crime No.496/07 of Police Station Kotwali, Khargone for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471/34 further read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) The substratum of prosecution case is that there were certain fraudulent transfers of lands and the present applicant who happened to be Sub-Registrar of registration of documents either shared common intention with the concerned parties or conspired with them to achieve unlawful gaining results in their favour, hence he has been implicated and has been arrested.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being Sub-Registrar, it was none of the part of his official duty to enter into any inquiry relating to the facts which constituted the offences imputed against a sale purchaser. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, the duty of the Registering Officer is not to find that the land in question actually belonged to the seller. He further submitted that the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Registration Act provides that the Registering Officer shall satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that he has executed the documents. There is nothing in this clause which requires the Registering Officer to make an inquiry about the title of the person making transfer with regard to the property belonging to him, the seller. He, therefore, submits that the accused/applicant has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy of the matter. He being a public servant, he all the more acted in bona fide discharge of his duty as such and neither he had nor he could have had any information regarding any design to commit the offences under reference by the concerned parties. Further he has submitted that looking to the position of the applicant, he would not at all abuse the provisions of bail. He cannot abscond or he is not in a position to in any manner influence any witnesses etc. He has also submitted that main evidence in the case as has been collected is only the documentary evidence and thus there is no chance of any tampering with the evidence by the accused/applicant. He has also submitted that in some other similar matter another bench of this Court in similar circumstances granted benefit of bail to the accused/ applicant. He made a reference to the order dated 21.11.2007 passed by this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No.6074 of 2007.