Hakam Singh vs State and ors.

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

A case was, registered against the petitioner and the three others under section 120B read with Section 420/468/465/471, Indian Penal Code. Three of them were charged by the (Spl.) Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, under the aforesaid sections, and their coaccused R.K. Sharma Advocate was, however, ''discharged, vide order dated 611982. It is against the aforesaid orders of the Magistrate that the present petition has been filed by Hakam Singh only.

Facts giving rise to this petition are that Rattan Singh respondent, partner of M/s. Free India Industries, Jullundur, was defaulter of incometax due to nonpayment of incometax tax arrears. Notice requiring him to pay the amount of incometax was served upon him but he did not make the payment of the outstanding amount against him. Shri G.P. Chopra, the then Tax Recovery Officer, by virtue of powers vested in him under the Incometax Act, was dealing with the recovery case. Rattan Singh was also, arrested under the orders of Tax Recovery Officer by O P. Sood. Inspector, Incometax, T.R.O. Branch, Jullundur on 621978. He was produced before Shri Hazur Singh, the then I.T.0 attached the property of Rattan Singh. i.e., currency notes valuing at RS. 1,50,000/ and one house No. 228, Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur, on 721978 Later on, the currencynotes were released but sortie more property, i.e., Virdi building and the rents of three tenants, belonging to Rattan Singh, was attached on 20.6.1978.

It is further alleged by the prosecution that Amarjit Singh and his father Hakam Singh, present petitioner. sold their house situated in Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur, in favour of Ashra Sharma, wife of R K Sharma coaccused and simultaneously Hakam Singh petitioner is alleged to have purchased House No. 228. Adarsh Nagar, Jullundur, from the aforesaid Rattan Singh. Hakam Singh petitioner knew fully well that the house in question was attached by the Incometax Department. He was also living in the aforesaid house along with his sons before purchasing, the same. It is further alleged that before the registration of the saledeed of the house, in dispute, valuing at Rs. 50,000/, Incometax clearance certificate was required, to be obtained from the Incometax Officer concerned by R. K. Sharma coaccused who was alleged to be a practising Incometax lawyer. He purposely did not fill up the application correctly and addressed it to the Incometax Officer, District II (11), Jullundur, at the instance of Rattan Singh accused. The said Incometax Officer is alleged to be not dealing with the said application. B D. Saluja coaccused is alleged to have facilitated the obtaining of the Incometax clearance, certificate, on the basis, of false particulars, from the authority which was not competent to issue the same. On these facts, the FIR was registered.

In this petition, we are concerned with Hakam Singh, petitioner only. In fact, Hakam Singh did not purchase any property from Rattan Singh accused. Amarjit Singh and Dalwinder Singh sons of Hakam Singh petitioner. were the persons who purchased the property in dispute from Rattan Singh accused M agreement to sell the property was executed between them on 4111977, i.e. long before the attachment of the house in question, by the Incometax Department. After wards on 3011978, a regular saledeed in respect of the abovementioned house was executed by Rattan Singh in Favour of the vendees Amarjit Singh and Dalwinder Singh. The whole amount was paid by the vendees and the actual possession of the house in question was also delivered to them by Rattan Singh 3011978. Rs. 50,000/ had been Paid by the vendees to Rattan Singh before the Sub. Registrar at the time of registration of the saledeed.

I have perused the original saledeed and the agreement tosell. The sale was between the aforesaid Amarjit Singh and Dalwinder Singh, goes of Hakam. Singh petitioner. on the one hand and Rattan Singh accused on the other. Hakam Singh petitioner has neither signed, the saledeed nor the, agreement to sell. There is no material on the record to show that Hakam Singh in any way entered into the conspiracy. The learned counsel for the. State could not show me any material, except the written statement filed by Sita Ram Inspector, to connect the petitioner with the crime. No reliance can be placed on the assertions in the written statement, which are not substantiated by the material on the record so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Dalwinder Singh is practising as a Chartered Accountant and is major. He is about 26 years of age Amarjit Singh is about 29 years of age. Dalwinder Singh and Amarjit Singh were 20 years and 23 years of age respectively at the time of execution of the saledeed. Thus, in my view, no case is made out against Hakam Singh petitioner. The sons of the petitioner were the bona fide purchasers and for consideration and they purchased the property, in dispute, after Rattan Singh accused showed them incometax clearance certificate from Incometax Department. It seems that Rattan Singh and his other coaccused were involved in the offence. Accordingly, the proceedings against Hakam Singh petitioner are quashed. However my observations in this order will not affect the merits of the case against the other coaccused of Hakam Singh petitioner.