Crl.Revision No.918 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.918 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.5.2011 Col. B.S.Guraya ... Petitioner versus UT, Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Col. B.S.Guraya preferred this revision to set aside the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, vide which, application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was disposed of. Story, in brief, is that RC No. 15/8-8-1990 SPE, Chandigarh, under Section 5(i) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act'), was registered against the petitioner and vide order dated 24.3.1999, charge was framed by the Special Judge. Check period for determination of alleged accumulated assets is from 1.1.1987 to 8.8.1990. Prosecution moved an application for attachment of movable and immovable property of the petitioner. Vide order dated 5.7.1993 (Annexure P-1), property of the petitioner was attached and vide order dated 16.9.1995 (Annexure P-2), order of attachment was made absolute. Petitioner filed review application for release of residential house No.208, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, and review application was accepted vide order dated 9.1.1996. Crl.Revision No.918 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that prosecution moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 206 IPC by alienating agricultural land situated in Village Jehan Khelen, District Hoshiarpur. Reply was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner believed that agricultural land situated in Village Jehan Khelen, District Hoshiarpur, was not attached because land was ancestral. Order dated 21.1.2011 is liable to be set aside because agricultural land alleged to be sold was ancestral land. Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved on 23.8.2010 is time barred because sale of land was on 2.6.2004. After going through the file, I am of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be not correct one. Undisputedly, case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the petitioner and after charge, petitioner is facing trial. Prosecution moved an application for attachment of movable and immovable property of the petitioner and this fact is clear from the orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2). After attachment, review application was filed by the petitioner for release of residential House No.208, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, and the review application was accepted vide order dated 9.1.1996. Against attachment, agricultural land was sold vide sale deed dated 2.6.2004. In case, petitioner was of the view that agricultural land was inherited in the year 1959 before joining Army, then application should have been moved for the release of agricultural land. Without getting the land released, land was sold. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to cite any authority that after the agricultural land was attached, then review Crl.Revision No.918 of 2011 3 application for release of residential house was accepted, then the petitioner had the right to alienate the agricultural land when attachment was intact as per orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Rightly or wrongly attachment order was there but without getting agricultural land released from attachment, agricultural land was sold vide registered sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after attachment, there was no entry in the revenue record regarding attachment of property. Petitioner is a lay man and presumed that agricultural land inherited in the year 1959, before joining services, was not under the attachment, then under bonafide mistake, sale deed was executed. But submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force because petitioner is not a lay man. Petitioner served in the Army as Colonel. Earlier, application was moved for release of residential house. If the petitioner serving as Colonel in the Army was of the view that agricultural land was inherited before joining service, then application should have been moved requesting the Court to release the agricultural land but petitioner had no right to execute sale deed simply on the allegation that there was no entry in the revenue record regarding attachment of agricultural land. After sale of agricultural land as per sale deed dated 2.6.2004 against the attachment orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), application was moved by the prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Only permission was given to initiate proceedings by the Court of competent jurisdiction for commission of offence punishable under Section 206 IPC. In view of the order, complaint is to be filed by the Court. After that, evidence is to be led by the prosecution. Opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to explain under what circumstances land was sold. Crl.Revision No.918 of 2011 4 Keeping in view the evidence of the prosecution and defence version, if any, by the petitioner, Court is to decide whether under bonafide mistake, sale deed was executed or with malafide intention, order of the Court was disobeyed. For the reasons recorded above, revision without merit is dismissed. 16.5.2011 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE