Criminal Appeal No. 587-SBA of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Appeal No. 587-SBA of 1997 Date of Decision: 5.5.2008 The Punjab State through Satwinder Singh, J.E., Legal Assistant, Housing and Urban Development Department, Punjab, Amritsar. …Appellant Versus Harbhajan Kaur and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present appeal against acquittal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Accused/respondents Harbhajan Kaur, Mohinder Kaur, Raghbir Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Sawinder Singh, Sunil Kumar and Swaran Singh were tried in a complaint under Section 11(i) read with Section (i) and 8(i) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (for short “the Act”). It was stated in the complaint that accused were joint owners of certain piece of land situated in village Verka, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The accused are stated to have divided their land into Criminal Appeal No. 587-SBA of 1997 2 five or more plots for purpose of transfer for residential, commercial or any other building purpose. Therefore, they had violated the provisions and the said act amounted to setting up a colony as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act. Learned Appellate Court in para 7 of the judgment held as under:- “7. It is obvious from the aforesaid that though under the definition of word “Colony”, five or more plots for residential, commercial, industrial purposes or any other building purposes would come into being, but taking advantage of Section 19 of the Act certain exemptions had been granted provided the plot is not more than 500 sq. yards and the transfer is only upto four plots in a calendar year. It is clear, therefore, that the violation if any would be as per the calendar year. Keeping in view the exemption that had been granted under Section 19 of the Act provided the case falls within the ambit of Section 19 and the notification issued thereto. In the case in hand perusal of the transactions reveal that more than five plots i.e. 9 were sold in the year 1985 by the accused to the persons mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. The complaint was filed on 30.6.89. The maximum punishment that can be awarded for violation of the provisions is 3 years and five. Therefore, the complaint had to be filed within 3 years. Regarding the said transactions, the Criminal Appeal No. 587-SBA of 1997 3 complaint was barred by time. In the year 1986, there was only one such transaction and therefore, the notification referred in Section 19 of the Act would come to the rescue of the accused persons. Therefore, it is held that with respect to the case falling in the year 1985, the complaint is barred by time and transfer of the year 1986 less than five in number i.e. only one. The complaint in these circumstances is dismissed and all the three accused are acquitted. File be consigned to the record room”. Learned trial Court has held that the complaint was filed after more than three years and the same was barred by limitation. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in the present case, nine sales were effected in the year 1985 and one sale was effected in the year 1986. A period of more than 23 years and 22 years, respectively, is going to elapse. Maximum sentence was for three years. Furthermore, the Act has been repealed and a new Act has been enacted. Be as it may, in appeal against acquitted, I do not find that the findings of learned trial Court are perverse. Therefore, no interference is called for and the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 5, 2008 “DK”