TARINI CHARAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA, VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 05.09.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge. Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R Case No. 36 of 2014 corresponding to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.74 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The F.I.R. was drawn up by one D.D.Seth, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Bhubaneswar on 06.12.2010 with the contention that on receipt of reliable information regarding registration of Deeds for transfer of land at a lower cost than the prevailing market rate by some Real Estate Company, an enquiry was taken up. It was found out that Sri Dillip Prasad Shaw and Sri Sugat Mohanty, Managing Director and Director respectively of M/s Aryan Infrastructure Private Limited, Bhubaneswar had purchased the lands in and around Bhubaneswar Town showing less cost in the Sale Deeds registered during the years 2002 and 2005 thereby avoiding the actual stamp duty and registration fee, causing loss to the State Exchequer. The allegation and enquiry related to four Sale Deeds, two of the year 2002 and other two of the year 2005. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that Sri Prahallad Nanda and Tarini Charan Sahu the present petitioner were functioning as District Su-Registrar, Khurda during relevant periods of execution of the said Sale Deeds in the year 2002 and 2005 and had shown undue official favour to the purchasers by abusing their official position thereby causing a loss of Rs 12,77,546/- to the State Exchequer Accordingly, the case was registered vide Bhubaneswar Vigilance PS. case No. 74 dated 06.12.2010 against the present petitioner and Prahallad Nanda, who were functioning as Sub-Registrars, besides the two purchasers. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offences was taken by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar by the impugned order.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset that even conceding the entire prosecution allegation regarding the alleged transactions to be true for the sake of argument, there is absolutely no case prima-facie made out against the petitioner which has been lost sight of by the learned Trial Court while taking cognizance of the alleged offences. It was submitted that the only allegation that was made in the F.I.R which was registered after about 8 years and 5 years of registration of the four Sale Deeds was that actual valuation of the lands transferred under those Deeds were not shown as per the then prevailing market price. Hence, the purchasers evaded actual stamp duty and registration Fee and the present petitioner functioning as Sub-Registrar was a party to the said acts by showing undue favour to the purchasers. It was submitted further that the two Sale Deeds of the year 2005 related to the present petitioner's period of functioning as Sub-Registrar vide Sale Deed no. 2596 of 2005 and 2595 of 2005. It is undisputed case of the prosecution that the stamp duty and the registration fee as required to be paid for registration according to the valuation shown in the Deeds have been duly paid. The only allegation is that the valuation of the lands transferred, was shown to be much less than the prevailing market price. Thus, it was submitted that the price of the land mentioned in the Deeds was not the market value but it was the estimated value given by the parties only for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and registration fee. It was submitted that Rule 25(2) of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 mandates that a Deed of transfer of an immovable property shall be registered if stamp duty and registration fee at the prescribed rate on the consideration set forth in instrument in question, are paid. It was submitted that the petitioner functioning as Sub-Registrar had no option than to register the documents since the stamp duty and registration fee as prescribed, were duly paid by the parties. It was further submitted that as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as it stood prior to its amendment in 2009, the alleged incident being of 2005, where the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set-forth in the instrument, he may after registering such instrument, refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable therein.