SURENDER SINGH DESHTA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition stands instituted, under, Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C., wherethrough, the petitioner/accused hence espouses, vis-vishis incriminatory role, borne in FIR No. 332 of 2008, of, 11.7.2008, registered with Police Station, Sadar, Distt. Mandi, under Sec. 201, 465,120-B, 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and, under Sec. 3 of Benami Transaction Act, 1988, an apt relief of it being quashed, and, has also prayed, that, consequential therewith proceedings, pending, be also, vis-vishis incriminatory role, hence quashed and set aside.

(2.) A sale deed qua the apt property, detailed, in the police report, was, executed on 24.4.2008, between the vendor named therein, and, one Khoob Ram. The execution of the aforesaid sale deed is alleged to be ridden with a vice, of it, being a benami transaction, (i) given the vendee named therein, one Khoob Ram, as reflected in his salary certificate, appended with the file, as maintained by the Investigating Officer concerned, rather not holding the apt financial capacity, for, liquidating the sale consideration, vis-visthe vendor, of, the afore sale deed. The incriminatory role, ascribed to the petitioner/accused herein , (i) is comprised in his notarizing, on 24.4.2008, an agreement to sell, drawn interse one Khoob Ram, and, one Sudhir Malik. The prosecution, does not contest, the factum qua the authentic signatures, of, executants thereof, and of the witnesses thereto, hence existing thereon. However, the emphatic pointed focus of the prosecution qua an incriminatory role, being fastenable, upon, the petitioner/accused, is grooved a) in Sudhir Malik, executant thereof, not, in contemporanity, vis-à-vis, the petitioner/accused hence notarizing it, hence recording his personal appearance before him, (ii) it being presented before him by a person, other than the signatories thereto, and, hence the petitioner colluding with the other coaccused, conniving whereof is alleged, to, stand sparked, by his rather hence ante-dating, and, ante-timing(s), the apt agreement to sell.

(3.) The ascription, of, the afore incriminatory role, vis-àvis the petitioner/accused, would prima-facie, stand grooved, in, entrenched tenacity, upon, material existing on record, with vivid disclosure(s) therein, qua i) the apt sale deed and agreement to sell being executed, at timings, hence holding interse co-incidence and synchronization, (ii) whereupon the factum of personal appearance of one Sudhir Malik, before the petitioner/accused, at the relevant time, would obviously stand concluded to be hence precluded, whereupon, the, accused would be amenable to face prosecution. However, with want, of, any evidence, vis-à-vis, the apt co-incidence(s) and synchronization(s), in, interse timings, qua afore documents' and also obviously, vis-à-vis, the, apt simultaneity, of, execution of sale deed, and, of, apt agreement to sell, iii) rather contrarily, with the apt sale deed, being evidently executed at Mandi, at 3:30 p.m., and with the register maintained by the petitioner/accused, not, elucidating therein the time, of its presentation, before him, (iii) thereupon with the evidence qua the apt co-incidence(s), and, synchronization(s) in timings, interse the drawing of sale deed, and the drawing and execution, of, agreement to sell, rather being grossly amiss, (iv) therefrom it stands concomitantly concluded that the incriminatory role, assigned vis-visthe accused, ought to both falter and stagger, (v) emphatically also when the prosecution has also not adduced, at this stage, any evidence with any prima-facie display therein, that, prior to 3:30 p.m., on 24.4.2008, the executants' of the agreement to sell, rather lacking transport facilities to travel, upto, Shimla, and, thereafter theirs returning to Mandi (iv) whereupon it is to be also concluded that at the relevant time, of, presentation and execution of agreement to sell, before the accused/petitioner, for its being hence notarized by him, all executants thereto, hence recording before him their respective personal appearance(s), besides witnesses thereto hence also recording their respective personal appearance(s) before him, nor hence any incriminatory role, is, ascribable, qua him.