Trambaklal Manik vs State of Odisha.

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.09.2013 of learned

S.D.J.M., Balasore taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/418/467/468/471/120-B/34, I.P.C. and Section 81 of the

Registration Act against the petitioners in T.R.Case No.1169 of 2005.

The Inspector General, Registration, Odisha lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Balasore on 23.06.2005 alleging that on

receipt of some information that 51 Sale Deeds have been registered in the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore wherein the dates put on

each page of those Deeds have been tampered with from 13.05.2004 to 18.09.2004 with an intention to defraud the Government, he made an

enquiry and found out that the Sale Deeds were actually executed on 13.05.2004 and as per Section 23 of the Registration Act, the Sale Deed has

to be presented before the Registering Authority within four months from the date of execution which according to Section 25 of the said Act can

be extended for another four months subject to condonation of delay by the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar on payment of extra amount. He

alleged that the 51 Sale Deeds were executed on 13.05.2004 and the period of four months expired on 13.09.2004. But the documents were

presented for registration on 14.01.2005 i.e. after expiry of eight months from the original date of execution on 13.05.2004. He further alleged that

the officers of the Office of the Sub- Registrar in connivance with the parties over-looked the date which was manipulated from 13.05.2004 to

18.09.2004 and registered the documents which were invalid and void being time-barred. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that the documents

having become void, should have been refused to be admitted for registration but by the fraudulent acts of the concerned officials huge loss was

caused to the State Exchequer. It was also submitted that the matter may be handed over to the C.I.D, C.B. for investigation. It was also alleged in

the F.I.R. that the Sale Deeds were executed by the Power of Attorney Holder of American Baptist Mission in respect of a huge patch of valuable

land even though a dispute was pending before the civil court about the genuineness of the authority of such Power of Attorney Holder.

Pursuant to the F.I.R., Balasore Town P.S. Case No.225 of 2005 was registered under Section 81 of the Indian Registration Act against three

officials of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Balasore who were allegedly involved in the acts. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to C.I.D,

Crime Branch, Odisha for investigation and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 420/418/

467/468/471/120-B/34, I.P.C. and Section 81 of the Registration Act against 34 accused persons including the present petitioners. By the

impugned order dated 07.09.2013 the learned S.D.J.M.,Balasore took cognizance of all the offences against 34 accused persons.

It is submitted in the present application that the order of cognizance was passed by the learned S.D.J.M., without application of judicial mind

since on admitted facts, as alleged, there was absolutely no offence committed by the accused persons. It was submitted that the Sale Deeds were

executed on 13.05.2004 but due to non-payment of consideration by the purchasers, the registration was deferred and finally the vendor received

the consideration on 18.09.2004 for which the dates mentioned on those Sale Deeds as 13.05.2004 were corrected as 18.09.2004. It was further

submitted that it was presented before the Sub-Registrar on 14.01.2005 i.e. within four months of the execution. Hence, there was no illegality or

offence committed by the purchasers or the vendor since there is no bar under any law to change the dates on one''s own documents before its

presentation for registration, the Stamp Papers having no period of expiry. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by

changing the dates from 13.05.2004 to 18.09.2004 for the reason that the consideration amount was not received, the petitioners have committed

no offence as has been alleged by the prosecution. It was also submitted and placed before the Court that the Sale Deeds were presented before

the Sub-Rregistrar, Balasore on 18.09.2004 itself but it was refused to be registered on the plea that the properties mentioned in those Sale Deeds

were undervalued. Assailing such refusal, one of the purchasers namely, Sunita Jataniya who is also a co-accused in this case, approached this

Court in W.P.(C) No.13258 of 2004. The said application was disposed of by order dated 06.12.2004 directing the concerned District Sub-

Registrar to register those Sale Deeds and to refer it to appropriate authority, if it was found out that the properties have been under-valued, as per

the provisions of law. Thereafter, the Sale Deeds were presented before the Sub-Registrar on 14.01.2005 and those were registered. Thus, it was

submitted that the accusation that Sale Deeds having been presented for registration after the period of eight months from 13.05.2004 had become

void documents, is not sustainable in view of the fact that the purchasers had not caused the delay intentionally, rather the delay was due to illegal

refusal by the concerned Registering Authority which was set-aside by the orders of this Court.

Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioners intentionally manipulated the dates from 13.05.2004 to 18.09.2004 to

defraud the State Government by avoiding the penalty amount to be paid in case of non-presentation of the document for registration within a

maximum period of eight months. It was submitted further that since the documents were presented after a lapse of eight months from its original

date of execution on 13.05.2004, the documents had become void and the petitioners should have purchased fresh stamp papers. It was

submitted that by such fraudulent acts of the petitioners as well as other co-accused persons, the State Exchequer has sustained loss of around

twenty lakh rupees. It was submitted that Section 23 of the Registration Act mandates that no document shall be accepted for registration unless it

is presented within four months of its execution save and except a Will. Further as per Section 25 of the Registration Act where the delay in such

presentation exceeds four months but does not exceed eight months, it can be registered subject to condonation of such delay by the A.D.M.-

cum-District Registering Authority on payment of fee not exceeding ten times the amount of the registration fee. Thus it was submitted that the

documents having been executed on 13.05.2004 the first period of four months expired on 13.09.2004 and subsequent period of four months

expired on 13.01.2005. Hence, on 14.01.2005 when the documents were presented and registered, the Sale Deeds had lost its validity and had

become void documents.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the first date of preparation of documents on 13.05.2004 is not disputed but those

were not presented for registration due to financial transactions. The financial transactions having been completed on 18.09.2004, the dates were

accordingly corrected and were present before the Sub-Registrar for registration. But, the registration was refused illegally on the ground of under-

valuation and only after obtaining the order of this court, the documents were presented for registration on 14.01.2005. It was also pointed out that

it has been categorically mentioned by the Investigating Authority in the charge-sheet, a copy of which is on record, that during course of

investigation it came to light that initially 34 Sale Deeds were prepared on 13.05.2004 but could not be produced before the District Sub-

Registrar, Balasore in time due to some problem in monetary transactions and subsequently the date was changed from 13.05.2004 to

18.09.2004. It has also been mentioned in the charge-sheet that on 18.09.2004 when the documents were produced before the District Sub-

Registrar, Balasore for registration, those were not accepted on the ground of under-valuation and after getting the order of this court, the 34 Sale

Deeds were produced before the District Sub-Registrar on 14.01.2005 and were registered on the same day. It was submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners that unless there was passing of consideration, it could not have been said that the Sale Deeds were executed on the

date those were signed. Admittedly, in this case the documents were prepared on 13.05.2004 but due to non-passing of consideration, it was

subsequently corrected as 18.09.2004 and there is no expiry date for any Stamp Paper. It was further submitted that there is also no bar for the

executants to change the dates on their own documents before presenting it for registration. It was also submitted that delay as alleged was not

caused due to any latches on the part of the petitioners but due to illegal refusal for registration which was subsequently cured by the orders of this

Court.

It was also submitted that as per Section 76 of the Indian Registration Act the duty of the Registrar is only to see whether the document has

been executed and whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied on the part of the applicant or persons

presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the documents to registration. Thus, the documents having been

executed on 18.09.2004 it was presented within the time limit and as per the settled position of law as held in a decision reported in 1978 Madras

Law Journal (Ethiragu Chettiar vrs. Danusu Ammal)

if the date which the document bears is within four months prior to the presentation of the document, the Registrar is not concerned as to whether

the document was actually executed on that date, or whether it had been antedated. The question whether the document had been ante-dated,

therefore, could not be decided by the Registrar."" Relying on another decision of the Hon''ble High Court of Kolkata reported in Vol-XVI the

Kolkata Weekly Notes, Page 585, it was submitted that in a case where a Deed has been presented for registration more than four months after

the date of its execution and its registration had been secured by the executants altering the date of instrument, which was done with the agreement

of the parties to the document, no fraud can be said to have been committed.

Submitting as aforesaid it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that considering the chain of the circumstances from any angle it can never

be said that there was any act of commission or omission on the part of the petitioners so as to make out the offences punishable under Sections

420/418/467/ 468/471/ 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 81 of the Registration Act for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned

S.D.J.M., Balasore in the impugned order.

Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that although the F.I.R. was lodged alleging that the dates have been manipulated in fifty one

Sale Deeds still Charge sheet has been filed only in relation to thirty four Sale Dees and the rest seventeen Sale Deeds were duly registered on

presentation before the Sub-Registrar on 12.01.2005 by way of franking.

The main contentions that were advanced on behalf of the State are that the Sale Deeds were presented for registration after eight months of

the original date of execution and those having been registered, huge loss was caused to the State Exchequer since the petitioner avoided the

additional fees they were liable to pay due to presentation of the Sale Deeds for registration after the maximum period of permissible eight months

from the date of execution. Secondly, it was contended that there was some civil dispute pending relating to the authority of the vendor as the

Power of Attorney Holder to execute the Sale Deeds in favour of the purchasers.

So far as the authority of the vendor is concerned, that has no relation with the facts and circumstances of the present case and it needs no

mention that the ultimate decision in the civil proceeding, if any, shall bind the parties to the transactions. As regards the delay in presentation of the

documents beyond the period of eight months, as discussed hereinbefore, it remained admitted that the documents were originally signed on

13.05.2004 and the date was subsequently changed to 18.09.2004. The documents were presented and registered on 14.01.2005 i.e. after expiry

of eight months from 13.05.2004, As stated earlier, it was found out in course of investigation that after changing the date to 18.09.2004

documents were presented for registration on the very day, but the registration was refused on the ground of under valuation. Thereafter, this Court

was moved assailing the said refusal and after getting a direction from this Court, the documents were presented and registered on 14.01.2005.

Thus, in my considered view the delay caused cannot be attributed to the petitioners so as to implicate them with a motive of defrauding the

State Government. Had the documents been registered on 18.09.2004, there would have been no illegality except asking the parties to pay the

additional fees for the expiry of first period of four months. But, it was not done so and the parties had to approach this Court to set-aside the

order of refusal made by the Registering Authority on a plea of under-valuation. Thus, taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration,

I do not find any motive or intention on the part of the petitioners to defraud the State Government so as to be implicated for the offences

punishable under Sections 420/418/467/ 468/471/ 120-B/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 81 of the Registration Act.

The uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. and the facts found out in course of investigation, in my considered opinion, do not disclose

any offence and make out a case against the accusedpetitioners, as has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court, to be one of the grounds where the

cognizance should be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the mis-carriage of justice (State of Haryana

vrs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 S.C. 604). Hence, I feel this is a fit case where interference is called for in exercise of power under Section 482,

Cr.P.C. by this Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order of cognizance dated 07.09.2013 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in C.T. Case No.1169 of 2005

against the petitioners is quashed. However, in the given circumstances that the documents were not presented within the period of four months,

the petitioners are liable to pay the additional fees which shall be calculated and realized by the concerned authorities according to law. The

CRLMC is disposed of accordingly.