1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No … 1508 ……… . of 2012
@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3149 of 2010
State of Madhya Pradesh ….. Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kori ….. Respondent
With
Crl. A.No.1509 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3150 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1510 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3151 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1511 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3152 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1512 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3153 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1513 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3154 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1514 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3155 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1515 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3156 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1516 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3157 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1517 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3158 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1518 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3160 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1519 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3161 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1520 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3162 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1521 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3163 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1522 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3164 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1523 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3165 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1524 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3168 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1525 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3169 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1526 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.1371 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1527 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3172 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1528 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3173 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1529 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3174 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1530 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3175 of 2010
Crl. A.No.1531 of 2012 @ SLP(Crl) No.3176 of 2010
JUDGMENT
Page 1
2
| 012 @ SL<br>012 @ SL | P(Crl) No<br>P(Crl) No |
|---|
JUDGMENT
R D O E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel on either side.
Page 2
3
3. We are disposing of all these fifty four appeals by a common
order since the identical issues arise for consideration in all these
appeals. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to
4. The respondent herein, who was functioning as the Deputy
Registrar, Khargone, was charge-sheeted for offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 34 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 34 and 81
of the Registration Act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’), quashed the First
Information Reports and the charge-sheets filed against the
JUDGMENT
respondent and also quashed the criminal case No. 2500 of 2007 and
other connected matters. In order to properly appreciate the
correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the High Court, it is
necessary to refer to few facts.
Page 3
4
5. State of Madhya Pradesh had introduced a Special Rehabilitation
Package (for short ‘Package’) for those persons who were displaced
from their lands, submerged while implementing the Sardar Sarovar
provided to enable them to purchase land of their choice. The amount
would be deposited in bank accounts of the oustees and the first
installment would be released when the oustees submits an affidavit
intending to purchase land and the second and final installment would
be released when both the seller and the purchaser would get their
sale deed registered and submit the proof of such registration of sale
deed. For availing of the benefit of that Package it was alleged,
various fake sale deeds were got registered in the Registrar’s Office at
Khargone. Complaints were raised about the manner in which the
JUDGMENT
benefit of the Package was availed of by persons who were not
affected by the Project. Narmada Bachao Andolan also filed a
complaint before the Narmada Valley Development Authority regarding
registration of fake sale deeds for claiming the benefit of the Package.
Page 4
5
6. The Collector, District Khargone, vide its letter dated 23.7.2007,
directed the Deputy Collector, Khargone to conduct an inquiry and
submit a report. The Deputy Collector submitted the report on
Further, referring to several sale deeds, it was specifically pointed out
that some of the vendees and vendors of the documents were fictitious
persons and deeds were executed and registered fraudulently.
7. Several FIRs were registered on the complaints filed by the
JUDGMENT
Rehabilitation Officer of the Project, District Khargone before the
Kotwali Police Station. In the FIR No.496 dated 18.9.2007 the report
of the Deputy Collector dated 11.9.2007 was specifically referred. The
operative portion of the FIR reads as follows:
“12. ……….Reference: - received the letter no. 791 dated
11.9.2007 of the Collector, Khargon for necessary action.
Regarding the aforesaid subject, it is said that name –
Page 5
6
| the resid<br>ndor in t | ent of vi<br>he villag |
|---|
JUDGMENT
Khargon, with the photocopy of the enquiry report.
2. The photocopy of the registration no. A-1/2575 dated
25/3/2006 - signature Ashok Kumar Modi, rehabilitation
officer, Sardar Sarobar Project, Manbaj, Dist. Dhar.
Page 6
7
Madhya Pradesh, after having come to know about the registration of
sale deeds on large scale between 1.4.2005 and 31.3.2007, also
ordered for an enquiry after placing the respondent who was the
Deputy Registrar, Khargone at the relevant point of time under
suspension. Detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Registrar,
Khargone and he submitted the report on 27.10.2007 to the Inspector
General (Registration), State of Madhya Pradesh. In the enquiry
following procedural irregularities were found:
“1. Even the photocopies of the copy of Khasara of five
years have been accepted. Detailed description is
mentioned in the annexed list.
JUDGMENT
2. Under the section 30(1) of the Registratin Act the sub
Registrar, Head Quarter, has not realized the additional fee
of Rs.200/- under the Article -7 of the Registration Fee
Table in the registration of the concerned deeds related to
the property situated in other tehsils of the district and
Rs.10/- under the article-10 of the said table.
Page 7
8
3. Under the section-30(1) of the Registration Act 1908 the
Sub Registrar, head quarter, has not sent memos to the
concerned sub registrars under the section-64 of the said
Act in the registration of the concerned deeds related to
the properties situated in other tehsils of the district.
| ot been s<br>gricultura | worn an<br>l land in |
|---|
5. According to the Circular No.3610/tak/one/2004 dated
15.12.04 of the Inspector General, Registration, Bhopal,
the P.A.N. Card nos. of the vendors and vendees have
not been got mentioned at the time of registration of the
deeds of the valuation of Rs. Five lacs or of more than
that according to the provisions of sections 139A of the
Income Tax
Act 1961 and of Rules 114 kh and 114 gh framed there
under. According to the report received from the sub
registrar, Khargon, dated 26.10.2007 the draft nos 60
and 61 have not been received. The concerned deeds
have been mentioned in the annexed list.
6. In the deeds the photo copies of the certificates of the
JUDGMENT
Land Acquisition Officer have been accepted instead of
originals, the description of which has been in the
annexed list.
7. The information regarding the loan book has been shown
in the annexed list.”
Page 8
9
9. The Investigating Officer took note of the above mentioned
reports and a final report (charge-sheet No. 546 of 2007) was
submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the Court against the
469, 471 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC and under
Sections 34 and 81 of the Registration Act, 1908. The operative
portion of the charge-sheet reads as follows:
“The brief description of the occurrence is like this that on
18/9/07 one written application with the deed for enquiry
was brought and submitted. Naniya, s/o Hariya, r/o Gangli
has received the amount of Rs.339857/- as the special
rehabilitation grant after submitting the registration no. A-
1/2575 dated 25/5/3006 the additional collector, Khargaon,
has found this in the enquiry of said registry that the survey
no. of the sale deed is wrong. The vendor is not the
resident of the village nor has the vendor got any existence
the in village. Therefore prima facie itself the sale
transaction was found to be illegal . In this regard, the
vendee has submitted after preparing the said forged
registration fraudulently & in conspiracy after being in
agreement with the vendor – Amar Singh s/o Chandar
Sikngh Caste- Rajput, r/o Bamhnala and with the witnesses
(1) Ashiq s/o Alabali Pinjara, r/o Sondul dist. Barbani (2)
Jagdish s/o Pataliya r/o Dehdala and with the deed write, B.
L. Gupta, Ravindra Nagar Baheti near the tower Khargon
with the purpose of receiving improper and illegal benefit
from the land of khasra no. 76 of the village Pokharbujurg,
tehsil Bhikhangaun, dist. Khargon. On the basis of the said
forged registration he has committed offence after putting
JUDGMENT
Page 9
10
the government in financial loss of Rs.339857/- improperly.
In the case the accused B.L. Gupta and Surendra Kori also
have been arrested. In the case the document of the bank
has remained to be received and the proceeding of the
comparison of the thumb impression of the accused Naniya
is yet to be done, regarding the accused B.L. Gupta
evidence is to be collected. Regarding the accused
Surendra Kori the certified hand writing examination report
and the necessary documents and the statement of the
district registrar are to be taken. The accused Surendra Kori
has abetted in committing the offence of criminal
conspiracy in the crime and he has misused his position. In
this regard also investigation is being done and permission
being is sought for submitting the charge sheet against the
accused. In this case the comparison of the impressions of
the fingers and the arrest of the rest accused persons are to
be done. The enquiry report of the additional collector,
Khargon and his statement are yet to be taken. In spite of
the attempts made till now they could not be taken up till
now. In this case the offence against the accused Naniya
on being found confirmed after preparing the charge sheet
546/07 u/s 173(8) is yet to be submitted. In the case
investigation is still going on, after finishing which the full
charge sheet will be submitted separately.”
10. Respondent herein then approached the High Court to quash the
JUDGMENT
FIRs as well as various charge-sheets filed against him. It was
contended before the High Court that the respondent, under the
Registration Act, was bound to register the sale deeds in the capacity
of the Sub-Registrar. Further, it was also pointed out that he had no
obligation or duty to ascertain about the correctness or genuineness of
Page 10
11
the documents which were brought before him for registration.
Further, it was also pointed out that the respondent had no knowledge
about the alleged forgery or the fraudulent manner in which the sale
conducting a detailed enquiry through the District Registrar, Khargon it
was found that the respondent was also involved in the fraudulent
transactions and had abated the parties in getting those sale deeds
executed.
11. The High Court took the view that the respondent, in the capacity
of the Sub-Registrar and functioning under the Registration Act, was
bound to register the documents brought before him and was not
expected to ascertain about the correctness and genuineness of the
JUDGMENT
title of the property and also whether there was any conspiracy
between the vendors and vendees in getting those sale deeds
executed. Further, it was also pointed out that the enquiry reports
revealed that there were only procedural irregularities in the
registration of sale deeds and there was nothing to show respondent’s
involvement in getting those sale deeds executed. The Court held that
Page 11
12
on the basis of the provisions of Section 34 of the Registration Act, the
respondent could not be held liable on the ground that he had not
verified the title of the vendor of the property alleged to have been
aside the FIRs and the charge-sheets filed against the respondent in all
the cases and the criminal cases registered against him were quashed.
Aggrieved by the same, these criminal appeals have been filed by the
State.
12. Shri Sidharth Dave, learned counsel appearing for the State,
submitted that the High Court has committed an error in holding that
the duty of the Registrar is only to register the sale deeds. Learned
counsel further submitted that, in a given case, if it is established,
JUDGMENT
prima facie , that the Registrar is also instrumental in aiding the
execution of several sale deeds by fictitious persons so as to
appropriate the benefit under the Package resulting loss to the State
Exchequer, he is also liable, if found to have been abetted in
committing the crime. Learned counsel pointed out that it was after
conducting a detailed enquiry by the District Collector and the
Page 12
13
Registrar of the Registration Department that charges were leveled
against the respondent. Learned counsel pointed out that such a large
number of sale deeds could not have been executed without the
order passed by the High Court which calls for interference by this
Court in these appeals.
13. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC
does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision. This Court has, in
several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC, though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with
caution. The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire
JUDGMENT
facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not
been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient material. In M.M.T.C. and
Another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another
(2002) 1 SCC 234, this Court held as follows:
Page 13
14
| “The law is well settled | | | | | | | | that the power of q | uashing criminal | | | | |
|---|
| proceeding | | | | | | | s should be ex | ercised very string | ently and | | with | | |
| circumspection. It is settled la | | | | | | | | w that at this stage, | the Court i | s | not | | |
| justified in | | | | | | | embarking upon | an enquiry as to | the reliability | | | | or |
| genuinenes | | | | | | | s or otherwise of t | he allegations made | in the complaint. | | | | |
| The | | | | inhere | | | nt powers do not | confer an arbitrary ju | risdiction on | | the | | |
| Court | | | | | | to ac | t according to its wh | im or caprice…..” | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| In | | State o | | | | | f Orissa and Anot | her v. Saroj Kumar | Sahoo (2005) | | | 13 | |
| SCC 540, this Court held as follows:<br>“Exercise of power under Section 482 of the. Cr.P.C.<br>in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule.<br>The Section does not confer any new powers on the High<br>Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court<br>possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages<br>three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction<br>may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order<br>under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of<br>court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is<br>neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule<br>which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No<br>legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide<br>for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore,<br>have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law<br>which are necessaJry UforD prGopeMr dEiscNharTge of functions and<br>duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine<br>which finds expression in the section which merely<br>recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High<br>Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the<br>absence of any express provision, as inherent in their<br>constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the<br>right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of<br>justice on the principle "quando lex aliauid alicui concedit,<br>concedered videtur et id sine guo resipsae esse non potest"<br>(when the law gives a person anything it gives him that<br>without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SCC | | 540, t | his Court held as foll |
|---|
| | | under Section 482 of | the. Cr.P.C. |
|---|
| in | a c | ase of this nature i | s the exception and n | ot the rule. |
| The S | | ection does not co | nfer any new powers | on the High |
| Court. | | It only saves the | inherent power whic | h the Court |
| possessed before the ena | | | ctment of the Cr.P.C. | It envisages |
| three<br>may | | circumstances und<br>be exercised, name | er which the inherent<br>ly, (i) to give effect | jurisdiction<br>to an order |
| under | | the Cr.P.C., (ii) to | prevent abuse of the | process of |
| court, | | and (iii) to otherwi | se secure the ends of | justice. It is |
| neithe | | r possible nor desir | able to lay down any in | flexible rule |
| which | | would govern the e | xercise of inherent juri | sdiction. No |
| legislative enactment de | | | aling with procedure | can provide |
| for al | | l cases that may | possibly arise. Courts | , therefore, |
| have | | inherent powers ap | art from express provi | sions of law |
| which | | are necessary for | proper discharge of fu | nctions and |
| duties | | JUD<br>imposed upon th | GMENT<br>em by law. That is t | he doctrine |
| which | | finds expression | in the section wh | ich merely |
| recognizes and preserve | | | s inherent powers o | f the High |
| Court | | s. All courts, wheth | er civil or criminal pos | sess, in the |
| absen | | ce of any express | provision, as inhere | nt in their |
| constitution, all such po | | | wers as are necessar | y to do the |
| right | | and to undo a wro | ng in course of admi | nistration of |
| justic | | e on the principle " | quando lex aliauid alic | ui concedit, |
| concedered videtur et id | | | sine guo resipsae esse | non potest" |
| (when | | the law gives a p | erson anything it giv | es him that |
| witho | | ut which it cannot | exist). While exercis | ing powers |
Page 14
15
| under | the s | ection, | | | the court | does not | functio | n as | a | cou |
|---|
| appea | l or r | evision. | | | Inherent | jurisdiction und | | er the | | sec |
| thoug | h wid | e ha | s | to be exer | | cised sparingly, | | carefully | | |
| with c | aution | and | only when s | | | uch exercise is j | | ustified by | | |
| tests | specifically | | laid down in | | | the section itsel | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| This | | Court, | again | , in | Eicher Trac | tors Ltd. | v. Ha | rihar | | Sing | h (2006) | |
| 12 SCC 763, held as follows:<br>“When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the<br>Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an<br>enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not<br>or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation<br>would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial<br>Judge.” | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 14. We are of the view that the | | | | | | principles laid down by this Court in | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| the | above | | mentioned | | judgments w | ould squarely ap | | ply to | | the | facts | and |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| circumstan | | | ces of | the | present case | . We ar | e in the | se cases c | | | oncerned | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| with | | the ex | ecutio | n of | several fictiti | ous sale | deeds t | he purpose | | | of w | hich |
| “ | Whe | n exercising | | | jurisdictio | n under | Secti | on 482 | | of |
|---|
| Code, | | the H | igh | Court would | | not ordinarily e | | mbark | | upo |
| enqui | | ry whether | | the evidenc | | e in question is | | reliable or | | |
| or wh | | ether | on | a | reasonable | appreciation o | | f it accusa | | |
| would | | not | be s | ustained. Th | | at is the | functi | on of | | the |
| was | | to | ma | ke unlawfu | l | JUDG<br>gain. Spec | MENT<br>ial Rehabilitatio | n Project a | s already |
|---|
| indicated w | as in | troduced to give | cash compensa | tion | to | th | e oustees |
|---|
| and | | Projec | t affected | families whic | h are an | inter-s | tate | Proje | ct of | four |
|---|
| States | inv | olving | Madhya Prade | sh, Rajasthan, | Maharashtra | and |
|---|
| Gujarat. | The R | ehabilitation and | resettlement i | s governe | d by | the |
|---|
| Narmada W | ater | Disputes Tribunal | (NWBT) | Award. | The | r | espondent, | | it |
|---|
Page 15
16
| was | | alleged, | registered | | various d | ocumen | ts rel | ating | to | the | | Project |
|---|
| without | verifying t | he | credentials | of the | purchaser | | and | seller | and |
|---|
| without | examining | that | | the | land | covered | by | the | sale | deeds | is | in |
|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| existenc | | | | | e o | r | n | ot or | | the l | ands | | belon | gs to the | Stat | e Government. | | | | | O | ffice |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| of | | the | | | Registrar, | | | | | it was | | p | ointed | out, h | ad is | sued | | an | O.M. | | d | ated |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 28.4.2005 | | | | | | to | | all th | | e Sub-Registrar | | | | s stating | that | while | | registering | | | | the |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| sale | | | deeds | | | in | | order | | to preve | | | nt regi | stration | of fak | e sale | | deeds | | to v | | erify |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| the | | identit | | | | y | of | the s | | eller | for | | which h | e has to | ask f | or photo i | | | dentification | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| proof from the seller such as PAN | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Card or Passport, which was not | | | | | | | | |
| done. Further it was noticed tha | | | | | | | | | | | | | | t certain deeds were | | | | | executed in | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| respect | | | | | of | th | | e | land | s which | | | were n | ot wholl | y situated | | i | n h | is o | wn | | sub- |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| districts | | | | | and | | | that t | | he provisions of | | | | Section | 64 o | f the | | Registration | | | | Act |
| was not followed. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| was | | | not | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 15. | | Th | e | responde | JU<br>nt herein | DG<br>was f | MEN<br>unctioni | T<br>ng as | Deputy | Registr | ar | at |
|---|
| Khargon | e | during th | e period | from | 1.4.2005 | to 3 | 1.3.2007 | when | more |
|---|
| than | 10 | 2 | sale | | deed | s relatin | g to th | e same | transaction | were | | executed |
|---|
| and | | all | t | hose | documents | | wer | e prim | a facie f | ound | to be | forged | so | as | to |
|---|
| get | | the | benefit of | the | | Package | which w | as m | eant | | for | the | | Project |
|---|
| affected | persons/oustees | di | splace | d from | the l | and. | I | t | was | noticed, |
|---|
Page 16
17
| prima | | faci | e, that | vendors | a | nd | ven | dees w | ere | | no | t th | e | Project | affected |
|---|
| persons/oustees, | but | | they | wante | d to a | vail | o | f t | he | benefit | | of | | the |
|---|
| Package, | thereb | y | deceived | the S | tate G | overnmen | t a | s | w | ell | | as | | the |
|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Project | | | | aff | ected | | persons/oustees. | | | | | | | | | | The | responden | | t | was | | suspended | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| from | | | the s | | ervice | | noticing | | | | | | | tha | t | he w | as also | instrumental | | | and | | abetted | | | | | in |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| the | | commission | | | | | of | the | | | | crime. | | | | The | allegations | | raised | | in | t | he | charge- | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| sheets | | | | are | prima | | facie | | | | allegations | | | | | | and th | e question | | of | involvement | | | | | | | of |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| responden | | | | | t has t | | o | be | | f | inally | | | | decide | | d depending | | up | on | the | | evidence | | | | | in |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| the case and, at this moment, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | we are only concerne | | | | | | d with the | | | | | |
| indications raised in the First Infor | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | mation Reports and charge-sheets. | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Allegation | | | | | is | tha | t the | | | | forge | | | | d | sale | deeds | were | executed | | | f | or | unlawful | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| gain | | | for w | | hich t | | he | | respondent ha | | | | | | | | s also | conspired | | and | | a | betted | | | | the | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| crime. | | | | F | urther | | the | | | charge-sheet | | | | | | | also r | efers | to | Section | | | 3 | 4 | of | | the | |
| Registratio | n Act | which | | reads | as follo |
|---|
34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer
(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in
sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be
registered under this Act, unless the person executing such
document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised
as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time
allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Page 17
18
PROVIDED that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable
accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in
cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months,
may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the
amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if
any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered.
(2) Appearances under sub-section (l) may be simultaneous or at
different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the
person by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document;
and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative,
assignee or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so
to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub-
section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall
forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.
| 16. | | In | Jambu | | Prasad | v. | Mohammad | Nawab | | Aftab | | Ali | | Khan | AIR |
|---|
| 1941 | PC | | 16 | states | | that | t | he | object | of this | Section | | is | to | | make | i | t | difficult |
|---|
| for | | persons | | to | | commit | frauds by | means | o | f | registration | | under | | Act. |
|---|
| Further | there | | is | | a | presumption und | er Section | | 114 | | of | | the | | Evidence | Act |
|---|
| that | | officia | l | acts | | have | been pe | rformed | i | n | | accordance | | with | | the |
|---|
| procedure | l | aid | | down | | under | | the Re | gistration | Act. | | Therefore | , | when | | a |
|---|
| document | h | as | | been | | duly | executed | there | will | be | | a | | presumption | | that | | it |
|---|
Page 18
19
| has | | been | registered | in | | accordance | with | law | and | | the | | onus | | is | | on | | the |
|---|
| prosecution | to | | show | t | hat | the | | respondent | h | as | a | betted | in | committing | | the |
|---|
| offence | | of | criminal | | conspiracy in | the c | rime | | and | | has | | misused | | his |
|---|
| position and was a party to the fraud. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|---|
| 17. | | Section | | 81 | | of | | the | Registrati | on Act | deals | | with | | penalties | | which |
| reads as follows:<br>“81. Penalty for incorrectly endorsing, copying, translating<br>or registering documents with intent to injure<br>Every registering officer appointed under this Act and every<br>person employed in his office for the purposes of this Act, who,<br>being charged with the endorsing, copying, translating or<br>registering of any document presented or deposited under its<br>provisions, endorses, copies, translates or registers such<br>document in a manner which he knows or believes to be<br>incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely<br>that he may thereby cause injury, as defined in the Indian Penal<br>Code, to any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a<br>term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| position a | nd | was | a | party | to | the frau |
|---|
| 18. | | The | question | | is | | JUDG<br>whether the | MENT<br>responden | t w | as | aware | | that | | such |
|---|
| deeds | were | executed | for | getting un | lawful | gain, | which | may | cause | | injury |
|---|
| to | | anoth | er | person | | a | s | defined und | er Section | 44 | of | the | | Indian | | Penal |
|---|
| Code | | is | a | matter | which | can | be esta | blished | only | on | adducing | evidence. |
|---|
| 19. | | We | are | of | | the | | considered opin | ion tha | t | in | view | | of | the | | magnitude | | of |
|---|
| the | | crime | , t | he | | number | | of | | docume | nts alleged | to | have | been | executed |
|---|
Page 19
20
| fraudulently | , | th | e | reports | | referred | to in | the | | charge-sheets | | and | | the |
|---|
| involvement | | of | the | | respondent e | tc. could | be | | decided | onl | y | if | | an |
|---|
| opportunity | is | g | iven | | to | | the | | prosecution. | | The | High | | Court, | | in | | such |
|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|---|
| circumstances | | | | | | | , | was | | | not | | j | ustified in | | | | | | quash | ing | all | | the | | | First | | | | Information | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Reports | | | | and | | the | | charge-sheets | | | | | | | | | | | in e | xercise | of | its | | powers | | | | | | under | | | Section | | |
| 482 CrPC. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 20. | | We | | | mak | | e i | t | clear | | | | tha | | t | whatev | | | | er we | have | | s | tated | | | | above | | | | | are | | only |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| prima facie observations which wo | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | uld not bind the trial Court while | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| deciding the criminal cases. Th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| allowed | | | | and | | the | | judgments | | | | | | | of | | | the H | | igh Court | | are | | set | | aside. | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | ……………………………………… | | | ..J. |
|---|
| | | | | | | (K.S. | Radhakrishnan) | | |
JUDGMENT
| | | | | | | | | | | | …………………………………… | | | | ..J. |
|---|
| | | | | | | | | | | (Dipa | | k | Misra) | | |
| New | | Delhi | , | | | |
|---|
| Septembe | | | r 2 | 6 | , 2 | 012 |
Page 20
