Crl. Misc. No. M-12398 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12398 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 10, 2010 Bhag Singh and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners No.1 to 4 are aggrieved by the order dated May 22, 2006 by virtue of which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala had framed charge against the petitioners to the effect that they, being in possession of agriculture land, without seeking Promoters Registration and Colonization Development Licence from the competent authority, unauthorized sold plots in violation of provisions of Sections 2 (i), 3, 5 and 21 of the PUDA Act and committed offence punishable under Section 36 of Crl. Misc. No. M-12398 of 2010 [2] the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is neither any sale deed executed by petitioners No.1 and 4 nor any sale made by them in favour of anyone besides this it has been argued that Charanbir Singh has not been challaned as he is recorded as the owner of the entire land. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy this Court that petitioners No.2 and 3 have not sold the land mentioned in the charge. The petition qua petitioners No.2 and 3 is dismissed without prejudice to their rights to be determined during the course of trial. So far as petitioners No.1 and 4 are concerned, they claimed that except for an agreement of sale executed on February 12, 2003 between them and Charanbir Singh- the original owner, there is no other document indicating right, title or interest of the petitioners. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Without minutely going through all the documents and the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a finding of fact cannot be given at this stage by this Court that petitioners No.1 and 4 have got no right, title or interest in the property and that they are not liable in any manner, for having violated the provisions of the Act. No ground is made out for interference at this stage. However, the only relief which can be granted to petitioners No.1 and 4 is that in case they move an application for exemption from personal appearance, the same would be allowed by the trial Court subject to any conditions imposed upon the petitioners. In case Crl. Misc. No. M-12398 of 2010 [3] petitioners No.1 and 4 so desire, the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses can be conducted in presence of their counsel as per provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. Petitioners No.1 and 4 will be required to comply with any condition imposed by the trial Court regarding their appearance. Dismissed. August 10, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE