Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) ACB-02, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT110001002022
CC No. 09/2022
FIR No. 04/2008
PS ACB
State Vs. Premson
ORDER
1. This is a fresh final report U/s 173(2) of Cr.P.C., chargesheeting
accused Premson, who at the relevant time was working as Sub
Registrar – VII, New Delhi.
2. The allegations against the charge sheeted accused are that he
allowed registration of different instruments in contravention to the
provisions of law and / or administrative instructions issued in that
regard; he registered documents pertaining to immovable properties
which were situated outside his jurisdiction and; the registered
instruments were not referred to the Collector of stamps for
determining the deficiency in stamp duty, if any.
3. Perusal of the final report reveals that when the accused was working
as Sub Registrar-VII, INA, New Delhi, between 5.10.2006 to
20.10.2007, as many as 25 instruments relating to different
immovable properties were registered by him, which were Power of
Attorney, and out of them only three properties existed within the
jurisdiction of accused and the rest were all situated outside his
jurisdiction. Those Power of Attorneys, either were instruments
empowering the donee to sell, gift, exchange or permanently alienate
CNR No. DLCT110001002022 CC No. 09/2022 FIR No. 04/2008 PS ACB State Vs. Premson Dated 07.03.2022
Pg. 1 Of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
2
the immovable property and were irrevocable in nature. According to
the investigating agency the accused contravened orders, as
mentioned in para 16.3 of the final report.
4. Out of those 25 instruments, 22 instruments (Power of Attorney)
related to properties which were situated beyond Territory of
National Capital of Delhi and the rest three were situated within
NCT. However, even those three were not situated within the
jurisdiction of accused. Despite that, those documents were registered
and deficiency of stamp duty was not got verified from the Collector
of Stamps.
5. However, the Collector of Stamps, vide letter dated 13.09.2018
reported that Stamp duty collected was appropriate qua all those 25
documents. Initially, allegedly one advocate namely Jaswant Rai
Aggarwal was alleged to have sent complaints to the SDM/ Revenue
Authorities on which inquiry was conducted and then formal
complaint was filed by the SDM. However, during investigation, Mr.
Jaswant Rai Aggarwal stated that he did not file any such complaint.
6. Sanction U/s 19 of POC Act has been obtained, which is dated
27.06.2012.
7. In the final report, it is mentioned that out of all the parties involved
in those 25 registrations, randomly, few parties were examined, who
claimed that they did not pay any illegal gratification to the accused
in any manner.
8. In the departmental inquiry conducted against the accused, some
penalty was imposed vide order dated 21.09.2011.
9. Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, specifically provides
that except as otherwise provided in the Act every document relating
to any property mentioned in Sec. 17(1)(a)(b)(d)(e), Sec. 17(2),
CNR No. DLCT110001002022 CC No. 09/2022 FIR No. 04/2008 PS ACB State Vs. Premson Dated 07.03.2022
Pg. 2 Of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
3
pertaining to immovable properties, shall be registered in the Office
of the Sub Registrar within whose sub district the whole or some
portion of the property to which the document relates, is situated.
10.Despite the fact that the FIR was registered more than 14 years ago
i.e. on 14.02.2008, what is claimed is that out of the parties involved
in those 25 registered documents, only some of them were examined,
that too randomly. It is not mentioned in the final report as to who all
were examined and who all were not examined. It is also not
mentioned as to what was the reason for not examining the other
parties involved. The accused is sought to be chargesheeted for
offence U/s 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988, as was inexistence at the time
of offence of this case before its amendment.
11.The investigating agency could not have at its whims & fencies
examined few of the parties / witnesses out of those transactions
leaving others without any justifiable reason. No such reason has
been put forth in the final report. When certain persons may be
knowing about the transaction, if any, the investigating agency ought
to have examined all those persons who may have some information
about the commission of offence. Thus, this matter requires further
investigation on the abovesaid aspect. The matter is sent back for
further investigation. Investigating agency to fairly and completely
investigate the matter and then file appropriate final report.
12.File be consigned to the record room.
(Dig Vinay Singh)
Special Judge (PC ACT)-02/(ACB)
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi / 07.03.2022 (r)
CNR No. DLCT110001002022 CC No. 09/2022 FIR No. 04/2008 PS ACB State Vs. Premson Dated 07.03.2022
Pg. 3 Of 3
-- 3 of 3 --