CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) DECIDED ON : 17.11.2011 Bua Singh ...Petitioner versus Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by Smt.Neelam Arora, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide which the order of the trial Court dated 20.08.2009 passed by Shri Roshan Lal Chohan, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, discharging the accused, was set aside and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial of the case. Briefly stated, the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter mentioned as “PUDA”), filed CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) -2- complaint under Section 36 read with Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14 (2), 15, 18 and 21 of the Punjab Apartment and Properties Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), in which it is mentioned that accused no.1 Jagir Singh was owner of land comprised of Khasra Nos. 91//23, 91//18 and 91/22/7 situated in village Nangli, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Accused No.2-Bua Singh, as General Power of Attorney of accused No.1-Jagir Singh, has sold land more than 1000 sq. yards in such a manner so as to divide same into plots for residential, commercial and industrial purpose, without obtaining licence from the competent authority. The detail of said sale deeds bearing Nos. 1 to 5 was given as under :- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- S.No. Name of the Area of Date of Price purchasers & plot sale deed/ address registration -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- 01. Balwinder Singh s/o 107.94 sq. 1.6.98 15000/- Tara Singh, Devi yards 4.6.98 nagar, Mohan Bakery Fatehgarh Road, Amritsar 02. Shambhu Singh s/o 100 sq. yards 23.10.98 20,000/- Shubha Lal and 26.10.98 Smt. Prem Lata, w/o Shambhu Singh r/o Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) -3- 03. Smt. Kavita w/o 495 sq. yards 15.4.98 79,000/- Subhash Chander 16.4.98 Daya Nand Nagar, Lawrence Road, Amritsar 04. Lata Rani w/o Dharam 495 sq. yards 15.4.98 70,000/- Lal Daya Nand Nagar, 16.4.98 Lawrence Road, Amritsar 05. Sunita w/o Kewal 495 sq. yards 15.4.98 60,500/- Krishan, Daya Nand 16.4.98 Nagar, Lawrence Road, Amritsar -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- It is further alleged that accused have not obtained any certificate of registration as promoter and even have not submitted any application along with requisite fee for registration as promoter as required under Section 21 of the Act and in this manner, they have contravene the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14 (2), 15, 18 and 21 of the Act punishable under Section 36 of the Act. The complainant examined Ajaib Rai as PW1, Balwinder Kaur as PW2, Sunita Madaan as PW3, Lata Rani as PW4, Kavita as PW5, Shambhu Singh as PW6, Jagtar Singh as PW7 and closed the evidence after tendering some documents. The learned trial Court, after going through the evidence, held that even if the evidence remains un-rebutted, it CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) -4- would not lead to conviction of the accused. Hence, discharged the accused/petitioners. The other accused were stated to have died. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order dated 20.08.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, vide which the petitioners were discharged, PUDA (now respondent) preferred the revision. The said revision was accepted by Smt. Neelam Arora, Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 17.08.2011. The petitioners have impugned the said judgment dated 17.08.2011 in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the petitioners have been facing trial for the last 12 years and were liable to be discharged by the trial Court. The complainant has merely failed to prove the commission of any offence by the petitioners under the Act. The complainant has failed to prove that the petitioners have developed any colony of more than 100 sq. yards. The complainant witnesses have admitted that they have not purchased the plots for residential purpose. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the petitioners but do not find any force in the same. At the time of framing of charge, the Court has to see whether prima facie charge is made out? As per sale deeds produced on the file, the petitioners have sold more than 1000 sq. yards i.e 107.94 sq. yards to Balwinder Singh, 100 sq. yards CRR NO. 2861 OF 2011(O&M) -5- to Shambhu Singh, 495 sq. yards to Kavita, 495 sq. yards to Lata Rani and 495 sq. yards to Sunita. Whether the said sale deeds are for the purpose of commercial or constructing houses, is a matter of evidence and has to be proved after framing of the charge. The learned Revisional Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity by accepting the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for discharge of the petitioners. So, no ground for interference in the present revision petition is made. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. NOVEMBER 17, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE