MADAN SINGH PUNDIR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these petitions arise out of the same order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, directing framing of charge against Petitioner Madan Singh under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act and Sec. 64 of the Stamps Act and a charge under Sections 420 and 120B Indian Penal Code, against the other Petitioners, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that Petitioner Devindra Kaur was allotted Plot No. 5, measuring 178.50 Sq. yards', situate in Model Town, Manali by the Director, Urban Estate Punjab, Chandigarh on 11.7.1966 under the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and Punjab Urban Estate (Sales and Site) Rules, 1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,284.00 subject to the conditions that till the payment of the instalment's of the consideration and till construction on the plot was raised to the extent of 10% she could not transfer it. She was repeatedly reminded by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Manali to comply with the conditions of allotment and vide letter dated 18.9.1984 was asked to comply with the conditions by 31st Dec., 1984, failing which allotment would be cancelled and the deposited consideration of allotment would be forfeited. The Estate Officer vide his communication dated 2.5.1987 informed Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Kullu, that some bungling was being done in the plots of Model Town Manali, therefore, no deed of transfer of any plot in Model Town Manali be registered without his approval. Petitioner Devindra Kaur did not comply with the conditions of allotment whereas Petitioner Asha Gupta and Dinesh Gupta constructed a building on the said plot, got water and electricity connections for so constructed building and Petitioner Asha Gupta made an application to the Tourism Department for registration of such building as Hotel Himani Central Point, Manali and such application stood allowed vide Order No. 3-18/91 -MNL-TD-269 dated 6.5.1991. The investigation in the case revealed that Petitioner Devindra Kaur, who is an old woman residing in Delhi, came to Shimla in 1988 and discussed the matter regarding sale of the plot in question with Satish Chander and it was settled that the plot would be sold for Rs. 70,000.00. Thereafter, said Satish Chander and Petitioner Asha Gupta started construction on the said plot. In the meanwhile, Satish Chander had been asking Petitioner Devindra Kaur to come to Kullu to get a sale deed executed. On 22.4.1991, an agreement was executed between Petitioner Asha Gupta and Satish Chander whereby Satish Chander agreed to complete construction of the building on the plot in question for consideration of Rs. 8,80,000.00. Satish Chander continued with the construction of the building as per the agreement and simultaneously had been asking Petitioner Devindra Kaur to come to Kullu. In turn Petitioner Devindra Kaur told him to find out a person to whom she would give her Power of Attorney for sale of the plot in question so that he might execute the sale deed. Satish Chander then took his servant Petitioner Ram Sandesh Roy to the residence of Petitioner Devindra Kaur in Delhi and Petitioner Devindra Kaur constituted Petitioner Ram Sandesh Roy as her General Power of Attorney to sell the said plot. Satish Chander paid Rs. 70,000.00 to Petitioner Devindra Kaur on 4.10.1991. Pursuant to the said General Power of Attorney a sale deed was executed in favour of Petitioner Asha Gupta on 23.12.1991, which was registered by Petitioner Madan Singh Pundir. The sale deed was executed on Stamp papers worth Rs. 8,400.00 on the basis of the sale consideration of Rs. 70,000.00 whereas the market value of the plot at the relevant time was Rs. 2,43,000.00, therefore, the stamp papers worth Rs. 30,000.00 were required for the sale deed. Petitioner Madan Singh Pundir misusing his official position got the lesser stamp papers used and thereby caused financial loss to the Himachal Government to the tune of Rs. 21,600.00. It is also case of the prosecution that the Petitioners and Satish Chander fraudulently showed the sold plot as vacant plot whereas a duly registered hotel existed thereon. Satish Chander is stated to have died on 11.12.1993, hence, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency only against the Petitioners under Sections 420/120, Indian Penal Code, Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 81/82 of the Registration Act and Sec. 64 of the Stamps Act.

(2.) On consideration of the material on record, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order directed framing of charge against the Petitioners as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners have preferred the present petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent-State and have also gone through the records.