Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2938 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh @ Pinka v. State Of Punjab

2019-11-08

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) - Pursuant to the order of this court dated 14.10.2019, an affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Hans, Deputy Commissioner, Moga, has been filed in court today (a copy of which has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner), stating therein that there being only two photographs of the registered deed, showing many persons (with a single name thereunder), is for the reason that the computer software programme by which the sale-deeds are generated, caters to only two photographs and therefore group photographs are being taken of all the buyers on one side and sellers on the other, with obviously the witnesses also included in such photographs. 2. The affidavit also refers to paragraph 127 of the Punjab Registration Manual, wherein parties to any registration process need to be identified by various authorities as given in the said provision, with it further stated that the petitioner had presented himself as Ramandeep Singh and was identified by one Satwinder Singh, Ex-Municipal Councillor, Moga. 3. Having considered that contention, as to why the computer software cannot be amended/altered to ensure that all vendors are shown on one side, with the names of each of them shown below the photograph, in seriatim, (with the name of each vendor shown from left to right as per their standing order in the photograph) and a similar photograph affixed of all vendees, with separate photographs for witnesses, is something which is absolutely not understood, as alteration of software/introduction of a new software to the aforesaid effect, is not a difficult task. 4. Consequently, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, is directed to go into the matter and to file an affidavit, as to why the computer software cannot be amended, even by necessary amendment in the Rules/the Punjab Registration Manual if necessary, with him also to respond as to why it should be not made mandatory for every vendor/vendee, as also witnesses, to show firm proof of their identity by way of either their passports or PAN cards, because it is seen that, unfortunately too often, Numberdars etc. appear and identify such witnesses to be persons who they are not, with thereafter criminal proceedings being initiated by one side or the other. 5. appear and identify such witnesses to be persons who they are not, with thereafter criminal proceedings being initiated by one side or the other. 5. Further, it needs to be taken judicial notice of by this court that far too often criminal and civil proceedings are coming up wherein the allegation is either that the Registrar was not registering the sale deed for extraneous consideration or that persons who gone for registration were actually getting themselves marked present even after registration hours and thereby trying to create an alibi in civil proceedings especially pertaining toa specific performance of a contract. 6. The Chief Secretary will therefore also respond to the query of this Court, as to why high definition video cameras be not installed in every single registration office, inside the office and outside, to determine as to who came inside the office and who came out of it, so that if anybody makes an allegation (as is becoming the norm), that he/she went to the registration office for the purpose of registration and the registration was not made for any reason, proof of such person having visited the registration office would be available on the CCTV footage, with high definition cameras to be installed for that purpose, so as to try and ensure that the identities of the persons entering and leaving the office, are not in doubt. 7. Further, to ensure that that the CCTV coverage is retained for a sufficiently long time to enable any aggrieved person to approach the competent authority, including the court, and to prove his grievance, why it should not be mandatory for such CCTV footage to be kept preserved for a period of at least three months. 8. Coming to the merits of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated what he had argued on the last date of hearing, to the effect that though no doubt the petitioner was present at the time of the registration of the sale deed, and his photograph is present on the sale deed, he in fact never signed as Ramandeep Singh and therefore the entire story of the complainant and the investigating agency against him is only to make him a scapegoat. 9. 9. Upon a query again put to him, that even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that he did not sign as Ramandeep Singh, why he did not sign his own name, i.e. Manjit Singh @ Pinka, the contention is that he in fact did sign documents, which are not on record. 10. Having considered that argument, with the photograph of the petitioner very much present in the photograph on the sale deed, as is not even denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but with no signatures of the petitioner, Manjit Singh @ Pinka, being present either as a vendor/vendee/witness to the sale deed, and on the other hand, the signatures of Ramandeep Singh being present, that contention is very difficult to accept, especially as it is the case of the investigating agency that the petitioner impersonated as Ramandeep Singh. 11. Consequently, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, for or against the petitioner, which would have already been subject matter of the investigation conducted, with the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. having been submitted to the competent court as per the instructions of the learned State counsel, the prayer of the petitioner for admitting him to 'anticipatory bail' is rejected. 12. However, for the purpose of the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, to be filed, adjourned to 09.12.2019. To be shown in the urgent list. A copy of this order be given to the learned State counsel under signatures of the Reader of the Bench.