JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Since all these petitions arise out of the same order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, directing framing of charge against petitioner Madan Singh under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act and Section 64 of the Stamps Act and a charge under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, against the other petitioners, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions are that petitioner Devindra Kaur was allotted Plot No. 5, measuring 178.50 Sq. yards, situate in Model Town, Manali by the Director, Urban Estate Punjab, Chandigarh on 11.7.1966 under the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 and Punjab Urban Estate (Sales and Site) Rules, 1965 for a consideration of Rs. 4,284/- subject to the conditions that till the payment of the installments of the consideration and till construction on the plot was raised to the extent of 10% she could not transfer it. She was repeatedly reminded by the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Manali to comply with the conditions of allotment and vide letter dated 18.9.1984 was asked to comply with the conditions by 31st December, 1984, failing which allotment would be cancelled and the deposited consideration of allotment would be forfeited. The Estate Officer vide his communication dated 2.5.1987 informed Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Kullu, that some bungling was being done in the plots of Model Town Manali, therefore, no deed of transfer of any plot in Model Town Manali be registered without his approval. Petitioner Devindra Kaur did not comply with the conditions of allotment whereas petitioner Asha Gupta and Dinesh Gupta constructed a building on the said plot, got water and electricity connections for so constructed building and petitioner Asha Gupta made an application to the Tourism Department for registration of such building as Hotel Himani Central Point, Manali and such application stood allowed vide Order No. 3-18/91-MNL-TD-269 dated 6.5.1991. The investigation in the case revealed that petitioner Devindra Kaur, who is an old woman residing in Delhi, came to Shimla in 1988 and discussed the matter regarding sale of the plot in question with Satish Chander and it was settled that the plot would be sold for Rs. 70,000/-. Thereafter, said Satish Chander and petitioner Asha Gupta started construction on the said plot. 70,000/-. Thereafter, said Satish Chander and petitioner Asha Gupta started construction on the said plot. In the meanwhile, Satish Chander had been asking petitioner Devindra Kaur to come to Kullu to get a sale deed executed. On 22.4.1991, anagreement was executed between petitioner Asha Gupta and Satish Chander whereby Satish Chander agreed to complete construction of the building on the plot in question for consideration of Rs. 8,80,000/-. Satish Chander continued with the construction of the building as per the agreement and simultaneously had been asking petitioner Devindra Kaur to come to Kullu. In turn petitioner Devindra Kaur told him to find out a person to whom she would give her Power of Attorney for sale of the plot in question so that he might execute the sale deed. Satish Chander then took his servant petitioner Ram Sandesh Roy to the residence of petitioner Devindra Kaur in Delhi and petitioner Devindra Kaur constituted petitioner Ram Sandesh Roy as her General Power of Attorney to sell the said plot. Satish Chander paid Rs. 70,000/- to petitioner Devindra Kaur on 4.10.1991. Pursuant to the said General Power of Attorney a sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner Asha Gupta on 23.12.1991, which was registered by petitioner Madan Singh Pundir. The sale deed was executed on Stamp papers worth Rs. 8,400/- on the basis of the sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- whereas the market value of the plot at the relevant time was Rs. 2,43,000/-, therefore, the stamp papers worth Rs. 30,000/- were required for the sale deed. Petitioner Madan Singh Pundir misusing his official position got the lesser stamp papers used and thereby caused financial loss to the Himachal Government to the tune of Rs. 21,600/-. It is also case of the prosecution that the petitioners and Satish Chander fraudulently showed the sold plot as vacant plot whereas a duly registered hotel existed thereon. Satish Chander is stated to have died on 11.12.1993, hence, a charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency only against the petitioners under Sections 420/120-, IPC, Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 81/82 of the Registration Act and Section 64 of the Stamps Act. 3. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order directed framing of charge against the petitioners as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. 4. 3. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order directed framing of charge against the petitioners as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 5. It is admitted case of the prosecution that in the year 1988 petitioner Devindra Kaur, allottee of the plot in question, agreed to sell the plot in question for Rs. 70,000/-. It is not the case of the prosecution that the sale price so fixed of a plot which petitioner Devindra Kaur got for Rs. 4,284 was intentionally, deliberately and fraudulently mentioned on the lower side and the real sale price was in fact fixed at the higher side. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the plot was sold by a sale deed which was executed on 23.12.1991 for the agreed sale consideration. Though the sale price of the plot was fixed by a settlement/agreement the sale deed could not be executed because of the non-availability of the seller for a considerably long time. However, neither the seller could have asked for higher sale consideration at a later stage nor the prospective purchaser was bound to pay the higher price because of the settled sale considerations, therefore, the sale had to be effected for the sale consideration already agreed. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the sale deed of the plot in question in favour of petitioner Asha Gupta as executed on 23.12.1991 was for the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- which was agreed in the year 1988. Thus, the sale consideration having been stated in the sale deed as per the agreement/settlement between the parties it cannot be said that the sale consideration was mentioned in the sale deed with the intention to commit fraud or cheating. It is not the case of the prosecution that the market value of the plot in the year 1988 when petitioner Devindra Kaur agreed to sell the plot was more than Rs. 70,000/-, nor the prosecution has brought on record any material to show that in the year the market value of the plot in question was more than the sale consideration as demanded by the prospective seller, i.e. petitioner Devindra Kaur. 6. 70,000/-, nor the prosecution has brought on record any material to show that in the year the market value of the plot in question was more than the sale consideration as demanded by the prospective seller, i.e. petitioner Devindra Kaur. 6. To show that the market value of the plot in question was much higher than the consideration mentioned the sale deed, the prosecution relied on the average market value of the land in the area adjoining the area in which the plot is situate and such market value has been worked out for the period 16.6.1991 to 15.6.1992. Primarily, the value of the land in the adjacent Phati during the aforesaid period cannot be said to be the market value of the plot in question situate in a different Phati unless the utility etc. of the lands in two Phaties are comparable and identical. There is no material on the record to prove this material aspect. Secondly the sale consideration of the plot as calculated on the basis of average market value in 1991-92 cannot be the market value in the year 1988. Thus, there being no evidence that at the time when petitioner Devindra Kaur agreed to sell the plot for Rs. 70,000/-, the market value thereof was higher than the agreed sale consideration and the aforesaid sale consideration was fixed with a view to defraud the State Government of its revenue, it cannot be said that the petitioners entered into a conspiracy with a view to cheat the Government of its revenue and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It may be pointed out here that petitioner Devindra Kaur was an allottee of the plot under the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964 for a consideration of Rs. 4,284/- subject, inter alia, to the condition that she was not to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer her right, title or interest in the site allotted to her except by way of lease from month to month. 4,284/- subject, inter alia, to the condition that she was not to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer her right, title or interest in the site allotted to her except by way of lease from month to month. If she committed breach of the said statutory conditions of the allotment as the case of the prosecution appears the remedy available is under Section 10 of the said Act by resuming the site allotted to her and if she had committed any other breach of the conditions or rules framed under the Act she could be prosecuted but only on the complaint of the Chief Administrator appointed under the Act or any other person authorized by him in this behalf. Since there is no such complaint, therefore, no cognizance of such offence can be taken nor has been taken by the Courts. 8. Section 81 of the Registration Act provides penalty for incorrectly endorsing, copying, translating or registering documents with intent to injure. Petitioner Madan Singh Pundir endorsed/registered the sale deed wherein the sale consideration was mentioned Rs. 70,000/- as was agreed to between the parties three years before the execution and registration of the sale deed. The so agreed sale consideration could not have been increased by the said petitioner contrary to the terms and conditions of a bona fide agreement between the parties. Therefore, petitioner Madan Singh Pundir, who endorsed/registered said sale deed wherein the sale consideration was mentioned as per the agreement between the parties cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 81 of the Registration Act. 9. Section 82 of the Registration Act provides penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation and abetment. It cannot be said that the sale deed contained any false statement regarding agreed sale consideration and otherwise it is not a case of delivering false copies or translations, false personation and abetment by petitioner Madan Singh Pundir. 10. Section 64 of the Indian Stamps Act provides penalty for omission to comply with the provisions of Section 27 of the said Act which provides that the consideration (if any) and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth in the instrument. 11. 11. As already stated herein above, it is not the prosecution case that the sale consideration of the plot in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- as agreed to by the seller in the year 1988 was not honestly and bonafide agreed. Therefore, even the ingredients of an offence under Section 64 of the Indian Stamps Act are not made out. 12. The aspects of the case, as discussed herein above, have not at all been considered by the trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order directing framing of the charge against the petitioners. For existence of material to prima facie show the material ingredients constituting the offences, charges could not have been ordered to be framed against the petitioner and by ignoring this material aspects of the case the Court below has committed such illegality which vitiate the impugned order. 13. As a result, all these four petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are discharged. -