DEV RATTAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of almost admitted facts. Dev Rattan petitioner was the owner of 14 Kanals 11 Marlas of agricultural land. He, without any licence from the Director under the provisions of S.3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the "Development Act''), carved out residential plots and sold an area of 16 Biswas each to four vendees, namely, Mohini Devi, Krishna, Ram Bharose and Brij Lal; total area sold vide four separate sale deeds executed on 20-11-1981 came to 3 Bighas 4 Biswas. After obtaining the sanction of the Director, as provided in S.11 of the Development Act, the District Town Planner, Karnal, sent a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Karnal, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered on 8-2-1983. After investigation, a report under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the "Code"), was submitted before the ilaqa Magistrate on 17-5-1984. After formalities, a prima facie case was found to have been made out under S.10 of the Development Act and the petitioner was accordingly charged by Shri P.L. Khanduja, the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, vide order dated 9-11-1984. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and the prosecution examined 3 witnesses by 16-1-1986 when an application on behalf of the petitioner was made for his discharge. In the application it was submitted that only contravention of S.9 of the Development Act was involved and the same was punishable with imprisonment for a period of six months under Sec. 10 of the Development Act. It was further prayed in that application that contravention of said S.9 as having been committed and the offence being punishable for six months' imprisonment, the prosecution was barred by the provisions of Sec. 468 of the Code. The trial Court presided over by Shri Dharam Pal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Panipat, after hearing the counsel for both the parties, came to the conclusion that only contravention of said Sec. 9 of the Development Act was involved and the offence being punishable only for six months imprisonment, the prosecution was barred by the provisions of Sec. 468 of the Code.

(2.) The State took up the matter in revision which was heard by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and after hearing the arguments it was held by that Court : (1) that the charge against the petitioner was framed under Sec. 10 of the Development Act for contravention of Sec. 7 thereof and, as the maximum punishment provided therein was 3 years, the question of bar of limitation does not arise, and (ii) that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to take up the matter after the framing of charge, vide the said application for discharge of the petitioner from the said charge and, as a matter of fact, the order of discharge amounted to an acquittal.

(3.) The petitioner has moved this criminal revision for challenging the order of the lower revisional Court for setting aside the order of the trial Court and for remanding the case for retrial.