Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1940 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. Central Narcotics Bureau

2012-09-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Criminal Revision No.9/2011 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.214/2008 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to have exhibited the sale deed in the proceedings under Sections 83 and 84 Cr.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the proceedings under Sections 83 and 84 Cr.P.C. are going on in relation to abscondance of the accused Om Prakash Choudhary in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on the basis of the application of Central Narcotics Bureau (CBN). The prayer made in the application is that certain properties of Om Prakash Choudhary should be forfeited. The petitioner appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara and submitted an objection claiming therein that he had purchased the property in question from Om Prakash Choudhary by an agreement and as such, the agreement should be permitted to be exhibited in the proceedings. The CBN objected to the said prayer and submitted that the unregistered document should not be permitted to be admitted in evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upheld the objection made by the CBN and rejected the petitioner's prayer to mark the document as exhibit by order dated 13.7.2011. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.7.2011 by filing a revision and the revisional court too has affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by its order dated 6.3.2012. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred the instant misc. petition challenging the aforesaid orders and seeking a direction that the petitioner be permitted to have the document marked as exhibit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the house in the year 2006, the attachment proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 and because the original owner of the house had absconded after executing the agreement, therefore, the registration of the document could not be done. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the house in the year 2006, the attachment proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 and because the original owner of the house had absconded after executing the agreement, therefore, the registration of the document could not be done. He further contended that the total stamp duty had been paid by the petitioner and as such, the document is fit for being registered and the petitioner could not have been denied the opportunity to defend himself by having the document exhibited. 5. Per contra, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court have rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer to have the document for sale admitted on record because the same is not a registered document and as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, it is not admissible in evidence. 6. Upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and the material available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the question which was in issue before the learned trial court was as regards the permissibility of exhibiting the unregistered document. By virtue of the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. 7. Obviously, the transaction which was in issue in the case was not a collateral transaction but was a direct transaction between the petitioner and the accused Om Prakash, who allegedly sold his property to the petitioner. The agreement which is sought to be exhibited was disclosing full consideration having been paid by the purchaser to the seller. Therefore, there could not have been any reason for the non-registration of the document in question. The agreement which is sought to be exhibited was disclosing full consideration having been paid by the purchaser to the seller. Therefore, there could not have been any reason for the non-registration of the document in question. In such circumstances, the possibility of the document having been prepared after being ante-dated cannot be ruled out and that is why the Legislature has mandated by virtue of the Registration Act that a document which is unregistered unless it is in relation to the collateral transaction cannot be admitted in evidence. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Dina Ji and others v. Daddi and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1153 , which has been relied upon by learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, is, therefore, squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 8. On the strength of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dina Ji's case (supra) and upon a consideration of relevant provisions of law (Registration Act) and keeping in view the fact that as the document in question is prepared for the transfer of the property by the accused to the petitioner, the same cannot be admitted in evidence and thus, the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to have the document exhibited in evidence. However, the petitioner is given an opportunity that if by adopting legal means, he is in a position to get the document registered in his favour within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of this order, he shall be at a liberty to request the trial court to permit the document to be exhibited and upon such prayer being made, the trial court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant misc. petition is disposed of. 10. Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******