Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT11-000582-2026
CLOR No. 09/2026
State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
FIR No. 11/2025
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
u/s 13(1)(d)/13(2) P.C. Act r/w
Sec. 120-B IPC
24.09.2026
Order on Closure Report
1. This order shall decide the Closure Report filed by the
Investigating Officer (IO) Insp. Yashwant Singh of the Anti-Corruption Branch
(ACB), Delhi.
Brief facts:
2. It is averred in the final report that a complaint was received from
Sh. M.S. Vats, SDM (HQ-I/OIC (Vig.) vide Ref. No. F.
14(31)/07/Div.Com/Vig./HQ/ND/1563 dated 26.09.2007 against Sh. Premson,
the then Sub-Registrar, INA, regarding rampant corruption and violation of
laws and regulations. It is alleged in the final report that Sh. Premson, the then
Sub-Registrar, INA, has not complied with the provisions of law as he had not
fulfilled the statutory obligations of examining the instrument presented before
him and has allowed the evasion of stamp duty thereby causing loss of revenue
to the government in a manner contrary to the statutory obligations cast upon
him as registering authority. He did not comply with the administrative
instructions issued from time to time by the Inspector General of Registration
and he had also allowed GPA to be registered whereas the instrument should
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 1 of 18
-- 1 of 18 --
have been registered as Sale Deed and allowed the private parties to evade
payment of stamp duty and thus caused loss of revenue to the Government
Exchequer. Contents of the complaint filed by Sh. M.S. Vats, SM (HQ-I)/OIC
(Vig.) are as follows:
“The above said official, Shri Premson, was posted
as Sub-Registrar (INA) from 05.10.2006 till 20.08.2007.
During his tenure as Sub-Registrar he was to follow the
provisions of Indian Stamp Act and its amendment Acts
and Indian Registration Act, 1908 and various
administrative instructions issued by the competent
authority.
The Department had received complaint from
Aggarwal Bandhu Associate at 7, Vikash Sadan Shopping
Complex, Near INA, New Delhi-23, regarding rampant
corruption and violation of laws and regulation at the office
of SR VII, New Delhi.
The complainant Sh. Jawant Rai Aggarwal,
Advocate has pointed out details of violations. On receipt
of the complaint, realizing the gravity of the complaint
SDM-1-HQ/OIC (Vig) was directed to form a team of
officials from Revenue Headquarters and examine the
veracity of the complaints. Sh. M.S. Vats along with Sh.
Gulab Singh & Shri Aswini both Naib Tehsildar in
Registration Branch went to the SR-VII office at INA and
seized 17 (seventeen) documents from the office of SR-VII.
The documents attached with the complaint have been
tabulated at Annexure ‘A’. The documents seized by SDM-
I (HQ) have been tabulated at Annexure ‘B’. The following
irregularities have been noticed prima-facie in the above
said documents.
(i) Registration of instruments in contravention to the
governing provisions of law/administrative instructions by
not examining the content and purpose of the instruments.
(ii) Registration of property situated outside his
jurisdiction.
Instruments were not referred to Collector of
Stamps for determination of market value of consideration,
thereby allowing payment of deficient stamp duty to the
Government exchequer.
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 2 of 18
-- 2 of 18 --
As the Office of Sub Registrar has been established
under an Act of Parliament its incumbents discharge quasi
judicial functions and have to apply the provision of the law
relevant to the discharge of their functions. Shri Premson
has not complied with the provisions of law as specified
above as he has not fulfilled the statutory obligations of
examining the instrument presented before him and has
allowed the evasion of Stamp Duty thereby causing loss of
revenue to the government in a manner contrary to the
statutory obligations cast upon him as registering authority
by the law. He therefore allowed the government to be
defrauded of its lawful revenue by means of collusion with
private and interested parties for ulterior motives aiming for
personal benefits. He further did not comply with the
administrative instructions issued from time to time by the
Inspector General of Registration. Further, he had allowed
agreement to sale to be registered whereas the instrument
should have been registered as sale deed and allowed the
private party to evade payment of stamp duty and thus
caused loss of revenue to the government exchequer by not
realizing the full stamp duty.
In view of the above I am directed to request you to
register a case against the above said official and
investigate the matter further and take further necessary
action to meet the ends of justice.”
3. Thereafter, a case FIR No. 04/2008 u/s 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) PC Act
r/w 120-B IPC was registered at P.S. ACB, GNCT of Delhi on 14.02.2008
(endorsement for case registration was made by Inspector Nand Kumar.).
Further investigation was carried out by him and subsequent Investigating
Officers.
4. After completion of investigation, the required prosecution
sanction order in terms of section 19 of PC Act against accused Sh. Premson,
SR-VII (INA) was obtained from the competent authority and chargesheet
dated 09.02.2022 was filed before Hon’ble Court of Spl. Judge, (PC Act),
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 3 of 18
-- 3 of 18 --
ACB-02, Rouse Avenue Courts presided over by Sh. Dig Vinay Singh by
Inspector Parveen Kumar Saroha.
5. During the stage of consideration of chargesheet, the court
observed some discrepancy in investigation and vide order dated 07.03.2022,
returned the case file with directions to further investigate the matter on certain
points regarding examination of property holders.
6. During the course of further investigation, the parties involved in
registration of alleged General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) were examined.
Thereafter, fresh chargesheet was filed by Insp. Krishan Kumar in the court of
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)-02, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi
presided over by Sh. Ashish Aggarwal. During the stage of further
consideration of chargesheet, the court observed further discrepancies in
investigation and vide order dated 07.11.2024 directed further investigation of
the case and directed to register separate FIRs for offences which are not jointly
triable. The order dated 07.11.2024 is as follows:
“1. IO submits that he was handed over the
investigation at a belated stage when the damage had
already been done.
2. By order dated 06.08.2024, certain queries were
raised by the Court. On 13.09.2024, the IO was not able to
respond to the queries. Ld. Public Prosecutor agreed that
there have been flaws in investigation.
3. As per charge-sheet, the accused Sub-Registrar was
found to be registering documents of properties which were
beyond his jurisdiction. This Court has noted that numerous
offences have been committed over different points of time.
Inspite of this, and in negation of the duty cast by Section
154 of CrPC, independent FIRs have not been registered for
the said offences. In order to ward off scrutiny of the Court
and accountability for the investigation done in each
individual case, and to make the case unwieldy and to
create roadblocks in the trial of accused person, all offences
were bundled into a common FIR. Not only this, the
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 4 of 18
-- 4 of 18 --
persons who got the documents registered illegally were not
arrayed as accused persons and were not proceeded against.
These are the persons who allegedly sponsored/abetted the
crime and benefited from it. However, they were let off.
4. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that at page no.12 of
the charge-sheet at point no.15, it is mentioned that the
person who purportedly executed the GPA had actually not
even executed the document. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits
that this is a clear case of forgery that may have taken place
with the assistance of the Sub-Registrar and inspite of this,
neither the Sub-Registrar nor the persons who committed
the forgery have been arrested or even proceeded against.
He also submits that sale of properties was carried out by
documents titled as “GPA” and stamp duty was not
collected by the Sub-Registrar while registering the
documents.
5. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the case is fit for
further investigation because many facts have come out
during the statements of persons recorded by the
investigating officer and several deficiencies are existing in
the investigation that has been carried out so far. Ld. Public
Prosecutor also submits that the persons who may have
given bribe need to be subjected to sustained interrogation
in order to ascertain the source of money paid as bribe, the
manner in which it was paid and the purpose which was
being fulfilled by getting the said documents registered. He
also submits that efforts need to be made to recover the
sums paid as bribe.
6. It is strange that all these aspects have not been
looked into inspite of the Anti-Corruption Branch sitting
over the investigation for sixteen long years. It is therefore
directed that further investigation be carried out.
7. Let affirmative steps towards the investigation,
including registration of fresh FIRs for offences which are
distinct and not jointly triable, be taken by the investigating
officer within one month from today. The investigating
officer shall submit status report of the investigation before
this Court on the next date.
8. I also find it appropriate that the investigation is
assigned to an investigating officer who can exclusively or
substantially devote his time to this case since sixteen years
have already passed. Let investigation be assigned to any
such investigating officer by the Joint Commissioner of
Anti-Corruption Branch. In this behalf, reference is made to
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 5 of 18
-- 5 of 18 --
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v Hemant Yashwant Dhage Crl.
Appeal No.766/2010 decided on 12.04.2010 where it was
held that this Court can direct change of investigating
officer.
9. It is made clear that the investigation will be
monitored by this Court since the officers of Anti-
Corruption Branch have failed to supervise it, due to which
there are gaping holes left unaddressed.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the Joint
Commissioner of Anti-Corruption Branch.
11. Renotify on 05.12.2024.”
7. It is averred in the final report that in compliance of the above said
order, a proposal in terms of Section 17A of PC Act was sent to the Competent
Authority vide No. 996/RC-04/08/DKS/ACP/ACB dated 24.01.2025, for
obtaining necessary permission for registration of 25 separate cases and
conducting further investigation against Sh. Premson, the then SR-VVI, INA
(now retired), Revenue Department, GNCT of Delhi. Thereafter, the
permission of the competent authority issued vide F. No.
17A/01/DOV/2025/3116 dated 28.03.2025 in terms of section 17A of PC Act,
1988 as amended in 2018, for registration of 25 separate FIRs for individual
transactions against Sh. Premson, the then SR-VII, INA, Revenue Department,
GNCT of Delhi was obtained.
8. On receipt of sanction, the endorsement for registration was made
by ACP Devendra Kumar Singh and the present case was registered on
12.04.2025 vide FIR No. 11/2025, u/s 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) PC Act r/w 120B IPC at
P.S.Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT of Delhi and investigation was handed
over to ACP Devendra Kumar Singh. However, later considering the
superannuation of ACP Devendra Kumar Singh on 31.01.2026, further
investigation of the present case and 24 other cases arising in compliance of
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 6 of 18
-- 6 of 18 --
order dated 07.11.2024, was handed over to Insp. Yashwant Singh on
15.01.2026.
9. During the course of investigation, Sh. Vikas Mehrotra S/o Late
Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra R/o A-204, Stellar King Court, Plot No. F-32,
Sector-50, Noida-201303 (Mob. No. 9810149071), aged 45 years was called
through notice and examined/interrogated in the presence of panch witness,
Sh. Pawan Kumar. During the couse of examination, he stated that the
property (one residential flat) bearing No. 307, on 3rd Floor, Urvashi
Apartment, constructed on the plot No. 384 (Part), holding No. 579/61/2, Ward
No. 18, Circle No. 50-A, Thana No. 9, Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313, Village
Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S. Kankar Bagh, Distt. Patna, Bihar was owned by his father
Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra. His father Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra had
expired on 06.02.2000. His mother Smt. Kanchan Devi Mehrotra told him that
the said property had already been sold by his father through his friend namely
Anand Prasad prior to his death. He further revealed that being the only son of
Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra, the aforesaid GPA was executed by him in
favour of Sh. Nand Kishore Sah on instructions from his mother Smt. Kanchan
Devi Mehrotra. He also clarified that he did not receive any money in lieu of
execution/sale of the aforesaid property as his mother told him that his father
had already received full amount of money in lieu of sale of the aforesaid
property prior to his death. He further stated that neither
Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi nor any other official of his office or any
broker/document writer have demanded or accepted bribe money in lieu of
registration of aforesaid property as an instrument of GPA. He further clarified
that he had not paid any amount of money as bribe to any official of Sub-
Registrar-VII office for registration of the aforesaid property. His interrogation
report is as under:
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 7 of 18
-- 7 of 18 --
“Q.1. You have seen and read the photocopy of the
aforesaid GPA. Whether you have been owner of the
aforesaid property at any point of time or otherwise.
Ans. The property (one residential flat) bearing No. 307,
on 3rd Floor, Urvashi Apartment, constructed on the plot
No. 384 (Part), Holding No. 579/61/2, Ward No. 18, Circle
No. 50-A, Thana No. 9, Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313,
Village Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S. Kankar Bagh, Distt. Patna,
Bihar was owned by my father Late Sh. Binod Kumar
Mehrotra. My father had expired on 06.02.2000. My
mother Smt. Kanchan Devi Mehrotra told me that the said
property has been sold by my father through his friend
namely Anand Prasad prior to his death.
Q.2. As per aforesaid GPA, you are the executant of the
said property whereas you were not the owner of aforesaid
property?
Ans. Yes, I am the executant of aforesaid property. On
instruction from my mother Smt. Kanchan Devi Mehrotra,
being the only son of Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra, I
executed the aforesaid GPA in favour of Sh. Nand Kishore
Sah. It is to clarify that I did not receive any amount of
money in lieu of execution/sale of the aforesaid property.
My mother said that my father had already received full
amount of money in lieu of sale of the aforeaid property
prior to his death.
Q.3. Please provide the certified copy of GPA in respect of
aforesaid property.
Ans. At this stage, I do not have any such document in my
possession.
Q.4. Name, address and contact details of the broker be
provided .
Ans. The aforeaid GPA was executed through Sh. Ashish
Kumar S/o Anand Prasad who was close friend of my late
father. I do not have any information regarding his current
residential address. However, I tried to establish contact
with Sh. Ashish Kumar on Mob. No. 9835220477 &
9899351905 many times after I was first called by the
previous Investigation Officer, but both these mobile
numbers are not working now.
Q.5. Whether you visited the office of
Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi on 02.08.2007 ?
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 8 of 18
-- 8 of 18 --
Ans. Yes, I visited the office of Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi on
02.08.2007 and executed the aforesaid instrument of GPA
in favour of Sh. Nand Kishore Sah.
Q.6. What was the mode of making payment in lieu of sale
of aforesaid property?
Ans. The aforesaid property was sold by my late father and
payment in this regard was also received by my late father
prior to his death. I did not receive any amount of money
from Sh. Nand Kishore Sah in favour of whom the
aforesaid property was executed. I executed the aforesaid
GPA on instruction of my mother, being the only son.
Q.7. Whether Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi or any other official
at office of Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi or any
broker/document writer have demanded or accepted bribe
money in lieu of registration of aforesaid property or
otherwise?
Ans. Neither Sub-Registrar-VII/Delhi nor any other official
of his office or any broker/document writer have demanded
or accepted bribe money in lieu of registration of aforesaid
property. It is further clarified that I have not paid any
amount of money as bribe to any official of Sub-Registrar-
VII for registration of aforesaid property.
Q.8. Please provide details by whom aforesaid
instrument of GPA was prepared?
Ans. The aforesaid instrument of GPA was prepared by
Sh. Ashish Kumar S/o Anand Prasad. I do not have any
information regarding his current address, location and
contact number.
Q.9. Please provide the details of transaction held
between the buyer and you.
Ans. I have already told that transaction of money was
held between my late father and Sh. Nand Kishore Sah. I
did not receive any payment also I have no idea about and
mode of transaction.
Q.10. Any other details you want to share with the
investigating agency related to this case.
Ans. No Please.”
10. During the course of investigation, Sh. Nand Kishore Sah, S/o Sh.
Shiv Nath Sah R/o Village-Sahpur, Bujurag, P.O. Sukki, District-Vaishali,
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 9 of 18
-- 9 of 18 --
Thana-Patepur, Bihar vide his written reply through Advocate Ajay Kumar
Sinha which was received at P.S. ACB through DAK. The reply invoked
Section 33 of Indian Registration Act and Hon’ble Delhi High Court order in
case titled Harmohini Sarna and Others vs. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. The
contents of the said reply are as under:
“1. That earlier a notice was sent by your department
which was replied by my client on 25.06.2023 along with
copy of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Patna for
necessary action.
2. That it is admitted fact that one Vikash Mehrotra
had a property bearing No. 307, 3rd Floor, Urbashi
Apartment constructed on Plot No. 384, Holding No.
579/61/2, land no. 18, circle No. 50-A, Thana No. 227,
Khata No. 313 Village-Sadikpur Jogi, P.S.- Kankarbagh,
Patna (Bihar).
3. That Vikash Mehrotra executed a registered power
of attorney in favour of my client to either sell the property
or to do other necessary acts as mentioned in the GPA.
4. That it is also admitted fact that the said power of
attorney is a registered document.
5. That Section 33 of Indian Registration Act says that,
GPA of any property situated in any part of India can be
executed and registered in any other part of India where the
executer (owner) resides. That in this light a photocopy of
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is also attached
herewith for your kind perusal.
6. That there is no role of my client in the said
execution and registration of General Power of Attorney at
Delhi.
7. That since my client is close and faithful person of
Vikash Mehrotra and therefore, on his request my client
went to Delhi and at Delhi according to law the said GPA
was executed and registered in favour of my client.
8. That the document was executed by Vikash
Mehrotra and the same is registered by the concerned Sub-
Registrar and therefore my client has played no role in the
execution and registration of that document.
9. That moreover my client is not beneficiary in any
manner in connection with the entire matter as he was only
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 10 of 18
-- 10 of 18 --
authorised by the owner of the property to execute sale
deed in favour of another person.
10. That I am enclosing a decision of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi for your kind perusal and also enclosing the
earlier reply sent to your department.
11. That in the above circumstances, it is requested you
not to take any legal action against my client because he has
not committed any illegal act or his act does not come
under the definition of any provision of anti-corruption act,
and you are requested to exonerate my client from the
investigation.”
11. During the course of further investigation, the instrument of
General Power of Attorney (GPA) registered vide Registration No. 2041 dated
02.08.2007 at the office of Sub Registrar VII in respect of property bearing
residential flat bearing No. 307, on 3rd Floor, Urvashi Apartment, constructed
on the plot No. 384 (Part), holding No. 579/61/2, Ward No. 18, Circle No. 50-
A, Thana No. 9, Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313, Village Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S.
Kankar Bagh, Distt. Patna, Bihar was examined. On examination of aforesaid
GPA, it was found that Sh. Vikas Mehrotra, S/o Late Sh. Binod Kumar
Mehrotra R/o A-204, Stellar King Court, Plot No. F-32, Sector-50, Noida-
201303, appointed Sh. Nand Kishore Sah as true and lawful attorney to do the
following acts, deeds and things in his name and on his behalf, by way of
aforesaid GPA which are as under:-
 To submit all kind of applications/affidavits, etc. whatsoever to the concerning
offices, departments, courts on his behalf.
 To present before the concerned authorities, to give statement oral/written on his
behalf.
 To sign on every necessary writing, to make any kind of construction, alterations,
repairs, additional construction etc. in the said flat/property.
 To install all kind of connections such as electric, water, power, flush.
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 11 of 18
-- 11 of 18 --
 To deposit the securites thereof and take back the same as and when required.
 To file any kind of civil/criminal suit or suits against others on my behalf.
 To contest the same if filed by others against me, to file any kind of revision, writ,
appeal from the lower court upto the Highest court of Appeal.
 To apply for the grant of No Objection Certificate, to obtain the same under
his/her/their own signature, to sell, to mortgage, to transfer the said plot/property to
any other person in any consideration to receive any earnest money, part payment,
full final payment.
 To execute the Sale Deed/Gift Deed/Mortgage Deed or any other concerning
documents in connection with the above said flat, on his behalf.
 To sign on the same, to produce the same for registration, before the Sub-Registrar
concerned, to admit the execution of the documents; to acknowledge the receipt of
part payment, full and final payment.
 To receive the balance (if any), to deliver the possession, to the above said purchaser,
to appoint any Vakil/Advocate, further Attorney or Attorneys, to receive the
compensation, alternative premises from the Govt. in case of acquisition of the said
flat.
 To let out the said flat to any other person on any rate of rent, to receive the rent from
the teant (s) to evict the tenant (s) by law court, to issue receipt of rent on my/our
behalf and do all such formalities in this regard.
 Generally to do all other kind of formalities, acts, deeds and things in connection
with the above said flat, even the same are not covered by the foregoing clauses of
this Deed of GPA for the full management and to transfer to fell the said flat with
constructions (if any) in all the said Attorney shall deem fit and proper.
 This Deed of Power of attorney shall be Revocable. This Deed of GPA shall be valid
throughout India, upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
12. During further investigation, Smt. Kanchan Devi Mehrotra W/o
Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra and mother of the executant of aforesaid GPA
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 12 of 18
-- 12 of 18 --
R/o A-204, Stellar King Court, Plot No. F-32, Sector-50 Noida-201303 (Mob.
No. 9810140522), aged 75 years was examined in the presence of her son
Sh. Vikas Mehrotra. During the couse of examination, she revealed that her
husband had expired on 06.02.2000 and the property (one residential flat)
bearing no. 307, on 3rd Floor, Urvashi Apartment, constructed on the plot No.
384 (Part), holding No. 579/61/2, Ward No. 18, Circle No. 50-A, Thana No. 9,
Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313, Village Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S. Kankar Bagh,
Distt. Patna, Bihar was owned by her husband Late Sh. Binod Kumar
Mehrotra. She further stated that her husband told her that the said property
has been sold by him to Sh. Nand Kishore Sah but the necessary documentation
was not done whereas her husband had already received full amount of money
in lieu of sale of the aforesaid property prior to his death but (exact amount not
known to her). She further stated that she told her son Vikas Mehrotra
regarding these facts.
Report of the IO:
13. The IO has mentioned the legal aspects as follows:
Legal Aspect I: Sub section (a) of Section 33 of the Registration Act reads as
“if the principal at the time of executing the power of attorney resides in any
part of India in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power of
attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar
within whose district or sub-district the principal resides. In the present case
none of the parties involved in registration of aforesaid GPA was residing in
Delhi.
Legal Aspect II: Perusal of Minutes of the meeting dated 13.06.2005 chaired
by Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), GNCT of Delhi read with point no. 10
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 13 of 18
-- 13 of 18 --
of Circular dated 12.11.2014 issued by Inspector General of Registration,
Department of Revenue, GNCT of Delhi and other relevant orders with regard
to registration of properties by way of an instrument of GPA; revealed violation
on part of alleged Sub-Registrar or on part of parties involved in registration of
aforesaid GPA.
Closure Report:
14. On completion of investigation, the IO observed that :
a. No transfer or sale or purchase of immovable property has been effected
by way of alleged registration of an instrument of GPA registered vide
Registration No. 2041 dated 02.08.2007 at the office of Sub-Registrar VII in
respect of one residential Flat property bearing no. 307, on 3rd Floor, Urvashi
Apartment, constructed on the plot No. 384 (Part), holding No. 579/61/2, Ward
No. 18, Circle No. 50-A, Thana No. 9, Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313, Village
Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S. Kankar Bagh, Distt. Patna, Bihar.
b. Nil consideration amount involved (as per GPA) in registration of
aforesaid GPA. Therefore, question of loss to Government Exchequer does not
arise.
c. Vide aforesaid GPA, the executant (Sh. Vikas Mehrotra) gave certain
powers (as mentioned in forgoing paras) to Sh. Nand Kishore Sah.
d. The alleged property belonged to Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra who had
expired on 06.02.2000 whereas the aforesaid GPA was executed by Sh. Vikas
Mehrotra S/o Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra on 02.08.2007 on instruction
from his mother.
e. None of the parties involved in registration of aforesaid GPA were
residing in Delhi during registration of aforesaid property.
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 14 of 18
-- 14 of 18 --
f. The aforesaid property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of
NCT of Delhi.
g. The alleged Sub-Registrar-VII, Sh. Premson and parties (Sh. Vikas
Mehrotra & Sh. Nand Kishore Sah) involved in registration of aforesaid GPA
did not comply with relevant period by the competent authority in Revenue
Department of GNCT of Delhi.
h. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Trial Court of Special Judge (PC Act)
(ACB) in case FIR No. 48/05, PS ACB, case titled State vs. Vinod Behari
Mathur, dated 19.03.2026 has held that a mere allegation of rule violation,
without any corresponding pecuniary advantage or valuable thing obtained by
the public servant or any other person, does not constitute the offence under
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. At best, it can be said
to be dereliction of duty and not an act of corruption or misconduct. It is trite
law that all the ingredients of the offence must be present and the courts cannot
presume or infer a missing ingredient. It has been recently held by Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala in the case of C. Surendranath v. State of Kerala, 2024
SCC OnLine Ker 210 that dishonest intention is
sine qua non to attract the
offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) PC Act. Mere conduct and action
of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to
criminal misconduct by a public servant. The chargesheet is legally deficient
on its face, and any cognizance taken would be bad in the eyes of law.
i. In the instant case, there are no allegations of demand or
acceptance of bribe by accused Sub-Registrar. There are only allegations of
rule violation, without any corresponding pecuniary advantage or valuable
thing obtained by the alleged Sub-Registrar or any other person.
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 15 of 18
-- 15 of 18 --
15. It is averred in the final report that there is no demand or
acceptance of any kind of bribe money involved in registration of aforesaid
GPA by Sh. Premson, the then Sub-Registrar VII, Delhi. Further, investigation
revealed that the alleged Sub-Registrar-VII, Sh. Premson and the parties
(Sh. Vikas Mehrotra & Sh. Nand Kishore Sah) involved in registration of
aforesaid GPA did not comply with relevant provisions of the Registration Act,
1908 and internal orders issued during the relevant period by the competent
authority in Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi. The parties involved
expressed ignorance regarding registration rules whereas act of Sh. Premson,
the then Sub-Registrar-VII, Delhi attracts appropriate disciplinary action by the
competent authority in Revenue Department of GNCT of Delhi. Since, there
are no allegations of demand or acceptance of bribe money by the alleged Sub-
Registrar VII or payment of bribe money by the parties involved; the
allegations under Section 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) PC Act r/w 120-B IPC are not
proved. Loss to Government Exchequer is also not proved as the consideration
amount is nil.
Stand of the Complainant:
16. On 31.08.2026, Mr. Bhaskar Priyadarshi, Sub-Registrar, INA had
appeared on behalf of complainant department and stated that he has no
objection if the closure report filed by the IO is accepted.
Examination and Analysis:
17. Heard submissions on the Closure Report and perused the record.
18. I have meticulously perused the final report (closure report) and
the key documents annexed thereto. It was alleged by the complainant that
Sh. Premson, Sub-Registrar, INA was taking illegal gratification and was
registering properties in collusion with the parties on the basis of general power
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 16 of 18
-- 16 of 18 --
of attorney thus, allowing them to evade stamp duty and consequently, causing
loss to the government exchequer. It is also alleged that he was registering the
properties situated outside his jurisdiction.
19. However, investigation has revealed that GPA was registered at
the office of Sub-Registrar-VII, INA vide registration no. 2041 on 02.08.2007
for the purpose of granting power to Mr. Nand Kishore Sah by Mr. Vikas
Mehrotra on the instructions of his mother Smt. Kanchan Devi to do all the
dealings with respect to property bearing no. 307, on 3rd Floor, Urvashi
Apartment, constructed on the plot No. 384 (Part), holding No. 579/61/2, Ward
No. 18, Circle No. 50-A, Thana No. 9, Tauzi No. 227, Khata No. 313, Village
Sadik Pur Jogi, P.S. Kankar Bagh, Distt. Patna, Bihar which was owned by
Late Mr. Binod Kumar Mehrotra, father of Sh. Vikas Mehrotra. Further,
investigation has also made it clear that the property in question had already
been sold by Late Sh. Binod Kumar Mehrotra to Sh. Nand Kishore Sah but the
necessary documentation was not done and that her husband had already
received full consideration amount in lieu of sale of the said property prior to
his death. Although vide GPA, Mr. Vikas Mehrotra has attempted to sell the
property to Sh. Nand Kishore Sah which is in violation of the registration rules,
but Mr. Vikas Mehrotra and Mr. Nand Kishore Sah have made it clear that no
bribe was ever given to any government official or the Sub-Registrar.
20. Therefore, from the inquiry and the investigation, though there
may be dereliction of duty on the part of accused person but it appears that
there is no reason to believe that accused Premson obtained illegal gratification
for registering the GPA for sale of property.
21. Most importantly, Mr. Bhaskar Priyadarshi, Sub-Registrar, INA
on behalf of the complainant department appeared before this court on
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 17 of 18
-- 17 of 18 --
31.08.2026 and submitted that the Department has no objection if the closure
report is accepted. His statement in this regard was also recorded. Therefore,
considering the evidence collected by the IO, the documents placed on record,
the statements of the witnesses as well as taking into account that the
Complainant Department did not object to the closure report, this court is of the
view that sufficient material is not available against the accused to prosecute
him under section 13(1)(d)/13(2) P.C. Act r/w Sec. 120-B IPC.
Decision:
22. In view of the above, the Closure Report is hereby accepted. The
bail bond and surety bond, if any, stands discharged. Original documents, if
any, shall be returned to the surety after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today
on this 24th day of September, 2026.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
CLOR No. 09/26 in FIR No. 11/25 State vs. Closure Report (Premson)
	Page 18 of 18
-- 18 of 18 --