JUDGMENT H.S. Madaan, J —Applicant Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, now Amritsar Development Authority, Amritsar, through Sh.Simarjeet Singh, Junior Engineer office of Amritsar Development Authority, Amritsar has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking special leave to appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority through Sh.Harjit Singh, A.E. CO Estate Officer, PUDA, Amritsar had brought a criminal complaint under Section 36 read with Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18 and 21 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegations that accused No.1 Santokh Singh (since dead) being owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos.11//22/1, 16//6, 15, 17//1, 2/1, 10, 11/1, 12/2/1 situated at village Bakhewal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur had agreed with remaining accused i.e. Dawinderpal Singh, Sandeep Kumar and Om Parkash (accused No.2 to 4) for dividing that land measuring 1000 Sq.Meters for commercial, residential and industrial purposes and in pursuance of that accused No.1 had executed a general power of attorney in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4 thereby setting up an unauthorized residential colony without obtaining licence for the said purpose in contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, the details of the land sold are given in the complaint, adding that accused were not holding a certificate of registration as promoters and did not submit any application for the same as required under Section 21 of the Act, in that way, they carried on business of promoters and Estate Agents setting up a colony in contravention of various provisions of the Act punishable under Section 36 of the Act. 3. On filing of the complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, accused were ordered to be summoned. As per report received, accused Santokh Singh had expired, therefore, proceedings against him stood abated. Remaining accused had appeared in the Court and were admitted to bail. Copies of documents were supplied to them free of costs as required under the law. During precharge evidence Sh.Harjit Singh, Civil Engineer, Office of GAMADA, Mohali got his statement recorded as PW1 and the evidence of the complainant stood closed. 4. Remaining accused had appeared in the Court and were admitted to bail. Copies of documents were supplied to them free of costs as required under the law. During precharge evidence Sh.Harjit Singh, Civil Engineer, Office of GAMADA, Mohali got his statement recorded as PW1 and the evidence of the complainant stood closed. 4. After hearing arguments and perusing the record, learned trial Magistrate framed charge for the offences under Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18 and 21 of the Act against the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During post-charge evidence PW1 Harjit Singh, Civil Engineer was subjected to further cross-examination. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused while denying the incriminating circumstances appearing against them submitted that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. Accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them. 6. The complainant felt aggrieved and he had knocked at the door of this Court by moving an application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal, notice of which has been issued to the respondents, who had put in appearance through counsel. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record and I find sufficient grounds to grant special leave to appeal to the complainant. 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala goes to show that she has returned finding of acquittal to the accused mainly for the following reasons: (i) Failure of the complainant to prove that the land sold by accused is more than 1000 Sq.meters. (ii)Failure of the complainant to lead any evidence with regard to existence of construction on the property sold. (iii)As accused No.1 Santokh Singh, owner of the property had expired, sales effected by accused Nos.2 to 4 as his attorneys, they could not possibly be prosecuted. The trial Magistrate has relied upon ratio of authority by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court i.e. Sri Krishan Versus State of Haryana , (1995) 2 RCR(Criminal) 543 in that regard. (iv)Non-obtaining of report from Patwari Halqa as to in what khasra numbers colony had been carved out. The trial Magistrate has relied upon ratio of authority by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court i.e. Sri Krishan Versus State of Haryana , (1995) 2 RCR(Criminal) 543 in that regard. (iv)Non-obtaining of report from Patwari Halqa as to in what khasra numbers colony had been carved out. However, I find that the reasoning given is not convincing. In the complaint itself, the complainant has given the details of the area sold to each seller and in support of that contention have placed on file jamabandi for the year 2004-05 as Ex.C1, Akshajra Ex.C2, copies of sale deeds Ex.C3 to Ex.C10, Ex.14 and Ex.C15. In para No.4 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that accused have set up an unauthorized residential colony by dividing the aforesaid land into plots, which is more that 1000 Sq. meters. Sh.Harjeet Singh, JE appearing as PW1 has deposed so on oath proving various documents including the site-plan Ex.C11 got prepared by him. He has further proved his report prepared in that regard. It has also come in his statement that during survey, it was found that an unauthorized colony is being created. The trial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint for the reason that actual owner Santokh Singh had died and accused Nos.2 to 4 being his attorneys cannot be held accountable. He has further proved his report prepared in that regard. It has also come in his statement that during survey, it was found that an unauthorized colony is being created. The trial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint for the reason that actual owner Santokh Singh had died and accused Nos.2 to 4 being his attorneys cannot be held accountable. But then the trial Magistrate has not properly considered definition of 'promoter' under the Act, which defines 'promoter' as a person as follows: (y) "promoter' means the person (a) who constricts or causes to be constricted a building consisting of apartments, or, converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other person, and includes his assigns; or (b) who develops land into a colony, whether or not he also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons, all or some of the plots, whether open or with structures thereon; and (c) where the person who constructs or convert a building or develops a colony and the person who sells apartments or plots are different persons, the term includes both of them; Explanation- (1) Any development authority and any other public body so notified by the State Government are deemed to be promoter in respect of allottees of (i) buildings constructed by them on land owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government; or (ii) plots owned by them or placed at their disposal by the State Government; Explanation- (2) A person who acts as described in subclause (c) of clause (y) shall be deemed to be a promoter, even if(i) he styles himself as a builder, colonizer, contractor, developer, estate promoter or by any other name; or (ii) he claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building is constructed or colony is developed. 9. That means a person may or may not be owner of the property and power of attorney from owner of the land on which the colony is being developed also comes with the definition of a promoter. 9. That means a person may or may not be owner of the property and power of attorney from owner of the land on which the colony is being developed also comes with the definition of a promoter. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Hari Chand Dewan Versus State of Haryana , (2002) 2 RCR(Civil) 637 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which it was observed that when a attorney had sold land on instructions of the owner and the FIR had been registered without obtaining sanction under Section 11 of the Act, held that no prosecution could be launched against the petitioner in absence of any sanction since the attorney had executed the sale deed on direction of the owner, only owner could be prosecuted and not attorney. 10. This authority is under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, whereas the present case pertains to Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, specifically clarifying that the promoters includes an attorney also. An attorney against whom there are specific allegations of set up of a colony can be let off simply for the reason that the original owner has expired. It is not the case of the accused that they had obtained any licence for setting up a colony. The observations of the trial Magistrate that the complainant has failed to prove that land sold by accused is more than 100 Sq. meters or that construction is raised therein are also not plausible and convincing. The trial Court has dismissed the complaint in a manner ,which is not just and proper. The evidence does not seem to have been appraised properly and there is wrong interpretation of law also. 11. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing counsel for the parties. The parties through counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14.5.2018 and the trial Court is directed to decide the complaint preferably within a period of two months. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.