Crl. Rev.1474 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1474 of 2004 Date of Decision: 6 - 5 – 2009 Hakam Nath .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has been convicted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda under Section 11(1) of the Punjab Regulation of Colonies Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act') as petitioner had violated conditions of Section 3(1) and Section 8(1) of the Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Petitioner had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Allegations against the petitioner are that during the period Crl. Rev.1474 of 2004 [2] 15.5.1995 to 28.7.1995, he executed four sale deeds and thus violated the provisions of the Act. The trial Court held that testimony of DW1 Mohinder Nath and DW2 Kunda Singh that the plots were not sold for construction of a colony cannot be believed as same is against oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court held that the appellant had sold 13 plots to different persons through his attorney Rakesh Kumar. The trial Court further held that testimony of Ramesh Kumar Junior Engineer PW1 is supported by evidence of other witnesses. Mr.Munish Jolly appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction as two Courts below have returned findings of fact. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that this Court should take into consideration that petitioner is not having criminal antecedents. It was a commercial venture. The petitioner due to his need had sold land of which he was lawful owner. Counsel further stated that offence, if any, is result of provisions of law and not due to any mens rea on the part of the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that petitioner has already suffered a protracted trial of more than 11 years. Counsel further submit that in the year 1995, petitioner was 45 years old and now he is of 55 years of age. Counsel for the petitioner state that petitioner can pay costs of litigation. It has been further submitted that offence is compoundable also. Taking into considerations the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation subject to filing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall be of good conduct and behaviour and shall maintain peace during the period of probation. However, cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Crl. Rev.1474 of 2004 [3] Petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 6, 2009. JUDGE RC