AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, dt. 22nd Jan., 2003, wherein the learned Magistrate has dismissed his application for discharge. It is contended by the petitioner that he has only followed the law as was prevalent at the time when he entered into contract for sale of the property. He submits that his acts were bona fide and were strictly in accordance with the prevalent law. He further submits that the judgment of the Supreme .Court which finally clarifies the law came after the deal had already taken place and part performance thereof done.
Therefore, there was no intentional violation of any of the provisions of the Act. Mr. Jolly, learned senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contends that the offence was committed when the petitioner violated Section 269UC.
Having heard learned counsel for the respondent and seeing the plight of the petitioner before me who is 84 years of age and also taking into consideration the fact that the law as it stood when the agreement was entered into, I deem it most unfair for a criminal prosecution to be launched. Looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, in particular, the age of the petitioner, I quash complaint No. 178 of 2002 titled as R.K. Sandhu, Dy. CIT v. Vijay Budhiraja and Ors. qua the petitioner herein/accused No. 3-Ram Lal Munjal. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent.
With this Crl. Revn. Petn. No. 131 of 2003 stands disposed of. Crl Misc. Appeal No. 224 of 2003 shall also stand disposed of.