Crl.R.No.2009/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.2009/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2010. Ram Kewal ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.MS Uppal,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC has been filed challenging the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the judgment and order dated 19/21.4.2010 of the trial Court convicting the petitioner under Section 10 of the HUDA Act, and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. In brief, the allegations against the petitioner were that he had sub-divided his land measuring 5 kanals, situated in Village Crl.R.No.2009/2010(O&M) 2 Chandawali,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt.Faridabad, into plots measuring more than 1000 square yards for residential/commercial/industrial purposes without obtaining a licence from Director Town and Country Planning,Haryana as required under Section 3 of the HDRUA Act,1975 and sold the same to different persons on different dates vide 16 sale deeds. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence brought on record, held the petitioner guilty for commission of an offence under Section 10 of the HUDA Act and awarded sentence as noticed above. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide impugned order dated 19.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land in question was not located within the five kilometers limit of Municipal Corporation,Faridabad and as such HUDA Act was not applicable. It is thus contended that both the Courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel, I find no merit in this revision petition. The learned appellate Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has already dealt with this submission in para 18 of its judgment, which is reproduced as under:- “18. Another contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the land is not located within the five kilometers of MCF limit, has also no Crl.R.No.2009/2010(O&M) 3 merit because site plan Ex.PW2/B as proved on record by PW2 shows the location of the land sold by the accused and it is revealed that the area sold is situated within the MCF limit. In these circumstances, authorities cited State of Punjab v. Gurmukh Singh 1990(1) PLR 398, Bishna Ram v. State of Haryana 1999 (2) RCR (Criminal) 80, relied by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.” In view of the above, no case for interference is made out, as this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot go into the finding of fact recorded by the courts below unless shown to be perverse. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the finding suffers from any perversity. Accordingly, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 25.8.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge