Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashThe matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition
and emanating from the record is that the complainant-respondent Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for brevity ""the complainant
PUDA"") has filed the criminal complaint (Annexure P2) against accused Tara Singh son of late Dalip Singh, Gurbachan Singh son of Darshan
Singh (petitioner No. 1) and his son Tarwinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) u/s 36 read with Sections 3, 5, 8, 9, 14(2), 15 & 18 of the Punjab
Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as ""the Act"") and Section 120B IPC. The case set up by the
complainant-PUDA, in brief in so far as relevant, inter-alia, was that accused Tara Singh was the share holder of the land in question. All the
accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, set up a colony by dividing the aforesaid land into residential, commercial & industrial plots, without
obtaining any licence or permit and without paying the prescribed fees, in lieu of change of use of land, from the competent authority. Thus, they
have contravened the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The accused have sold several plots (mentioned therein in the complaint) in the
aforesaid colony to different persons, after the commencement of the Act. It was further claimed that the accused were not holding a certificate of
registration as promoter. Even they did not submit any application for registration as promoter as required u/s 21 of the Act for setting up the
colony by dividing the indicated land into residential, commercial and industrial purposes or for any other construction purposes. The accused thus
carried on business of promoter & estate agent and set up a colony as defined u/s 2(1) of the Act and contravened the provisions of sections 3, 5,
8, 9, 14(2), 15, 18 & 21 of the Act, which are punishable u/s 36 of the Act and also section 120B IPC. In the background of these allegations, the
complainant-PUDA filed the criminal complaint (Annexure P2) against the accused, in the manner depicted here-in-above.
2. As the complaint was filed by the complainant-PUDA in its official capacity, therefore, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with
and the accused were ordered to be summoned by the trial Court, by virtue of summoning order dated 8.7.2004 (Annexure P3).
3. Having recorded the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court discharged the petitioners-accused, by way of order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure
P4).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition (Annexure P5) filed by the complainant-PUDA was accepted by the revisional Court, by means of
impugned order dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure P1).
5. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition to quash the impugned order (Annexure P1), invoking the
provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the
entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
7. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of learned counsel that since it is not proved on record that the plots were carved out and sold prior to or
after the commencement of the Act, so, the trial Court has rightly discharged the petitioners-accused, but the revisional Court committed a legal
mistake to direct them to face the trial of pointed offences, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon''ble Apex Court in case Yogesh @
Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed as under (para 15):-
It is trite that the words ""not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused"" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on
the part of the Judge of the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in
assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither
feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied
that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge
the accused At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not.
8. Sequelly, it was held by this Court in case M.L. Wadhwa Vs. M.M. Rehani and another, that ""at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is
only to see whether a triable issue arises from the pre-charge evidence led by the prosecution or not.
9. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioners-
accused in the instant controversy.
10. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations that the petitioners and their other co-accused have hatched a criminal
conspiracy, set up a colony by dividing the aforesaid land into residential, commercial & industrial plots, without obtaining any licence or permit
and without paying the prescribed fees, in lieu of change of use of land, from the competent authority. Thus, they have contravened the provisions
of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. They have sold several plots (mentioned therein in the complaint) in the indicated colony to different persons, after
the commencement of the Act. The main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court to discharge the petitioners-accused,
were that (i) it is not proved on record that the colony was carved out and the plots were sold for residential, commercial and industrial purposes
without obtaining any licence or permit from the competent authority and (ii) the complaint (Annexure P2) was filed by the complainant-PUDA
after the expiry of period of limitation.
11. Here, to my mind, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this regard. Although Tara Singh accused was stated to be the co-sharer
of the land in question, but the petitioners-accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, carved out the colony and sold the plots as his attorney in
complete violations of the aforesaid provisions of the Act in the manner depicted here-in-above. They are directly involved in the commission of
offences in question. Moreover, the impugned sale deeds (Annexures P7 to P12) are between February, 2004 to April, 2004. The complainant-
PUDA has filed the complaint (Annexure P2) in the Court on 8.7.2004. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that the complaint was filed
after the expiry of statutory period of limitation, as contemplated u/s 468 Cr.PC, as contrary held by the trial Court and urged on behalf of the
petitioners. Therefore, there is ample evidence on record to involve the complicity of the petitioners-accused in this relevant connection.
12. Above-all, it is now well settled principle of law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider, whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence sufficient for conviction, at this
stage.
13. A similar question was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, . Having interpreted the
provisions of Sections 227/228 of the Cr.P.C., it was ruled that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that
the materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction of the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding
further, then a charge has to be framed. Such intricate questions of sufficiency of evidence for conviction are not required to be determined at this
initial stage of framing of charges, as has been done by the trial Court in the instant case.
14. Thus, if the nature of accusation of criminal conspiracy, material evidence, legal position and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that there is an ample evidence on record to frame the
charges against the petitioners. In this manner, it cannot possibly be saith at this initial stage that there is no sufficient evidence against the petitioners
to frame the charges, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the complaint (Annexure P2). Therefore, the contrary submissions of
learned counsel for petitioners ""stricto sensu"" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the ratio of the law
laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in State of M.P.''s case (supra) ""mutatis mutandis"" is applicable to the facts of the instant case and is the
complete answer to the problem in hand.
15. Not only that, the matter was correctly examined, all the contentions relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged by the
counsel for petitioners, have already been duly considered, negated and the revisional Court has rectified the mistake committed by the trial Court,
through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:-
The perusal of the record shows that the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is not as per law. Firstly, the complainant has
stated that the accused had set up a colony by dividing the land shown in the jamabandi Ex. C1 without obtaining licence from the competent
authority, which is more than 1000 sq. meters. There is nothing in his cross examination to show that the area was less than 1000 sq. meters.
Otherwise also, copy of jamabandi Ex.C1 has been placed on the record in which Tara Singh was shown having 1/7 share in the land 32 kanals
14 marlas. The complainant has also prepared the site plan Ex.C2, which is on the record showing the roads, etc. already constructed and the
plots in the property in dispute. As per the Act, the total area of the colony is to be taken in which the colony has been carved out. At the stage of
charge, the court is to see prima facie case whether charge is made out or not. Secondly, Ex.C13 document is on the record, which is report of
Rakesh Kumar dated 30.5.2004 in which also it is held that the area is more than 1000 sq. meters. Further, I find that copies of the sale deeds
have been placed on the record. As per Ex.C4, Gurbachan Singh son of Darshan Singh as attorney of Tara Singh sold the area 10 marlas 180 sq.
ft. by showing the dimensions 301 x 751 and the number has been given to that plot as 185 and the plot no. 184 has been shown on one side and
plot no. 186 has been shown on the other side. This sale deed is of 17.12.2003. The other sale deed Ex.C5 is also of 3.2.2004, which was also
executed by Gurbachan Singh as general power of attorney of Tara Singh regarding House No. 191 measuring 7 marlas 83 sq. ft. total 1532 sq.
ft. and roads have been shown on two sides, etc. In this sale deed, a room and boundary wall have been shown. In the earlier sale deed, Ex.C4
also, a room and boundary wall have been shown to be constructed. Similarly, the other sale deed Ex.C11/A was also executed by Gurbachan
Singh. In this case also, one room has been shown as constructed and on one side plot, street etc. have been shown. Similarly, there is certified
copy of other sale deed endorsement on which is Ex.C7 showing the same executed by Tarwinder Singh, attorney of Tara Singh. In this property
also, the number has been given to the property and one room has been shown as constructed. This sale deed is also of 20.2.2004. Ex.C8 sale
deed is of 12.3.2004. Ex.C9 sale deed is of 31.3.2004. Ex.C10 sale deed is dated 15.4.2004. The complaint has been filed in the court on
8.7.2004. Keeping in view the documentary evidence placed on the record, in no way, it can be held that the complaint is time barred. Similarly,
one line cross examination of Shub Lata PW that colony has been constructed 10/15 years ago, cannot be believed in the presence of execution of
sale deeds in the year 2003-2004. Again in all the properties, one room has been shown constructed. The whole property was owned by Tara
Singh and the sale deeds have been executed by Gurbachan Singh and Tarwinder Singh, being attorneys. There is no cogent documentary
evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the colony has been constructed about 10-15 years back, especially in view of the sale deeds,
which are executed in the year 2003-2004. Further, I find that mere fact that the Patwari has stated that in the jamabandi, the property has been
shown as abadi itself does not prove that colony was constructed in the year 1998-99. He himself in the cross examination has stated that he
cannot tell without seeing the khasra girdawari, where the construction has been raised and which is cultivable area. Therefore, from the record, I
find that the colony has been carved out in more than 1000 sq. meters area. The sale deeds have been executed in the year 2003-2004 by the
attorneys of Tara Singh. Therefore, in no way, it can be held that the complaint is time barred. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited
2009(3) RCR (Cri) 145 S.C. in which, it is held that even with evidence of single witness, Magistrate could proceed to frame charge. It is also
held that when the evidence is offered u/s 244 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, the Magistrate has to consider the same and if he is convinced, the
Magistrate can frame the charge. I have gone through this citation. This citation fully applies to the facts of the present case.
16. The learned counsel for petitioners did not point out any material/ground, muchless cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned
order (Annexure P1) of revisional Court.
17. Meaning thereby, the revisional Court, after taking into consideration and appreciating the entire material on record in the right perspective, has
recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such order (Annexure P1) containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered in the
exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, u/s 482 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no
such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned order (Annexure P1)
deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
18. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
19. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the
course of trial of complaint (Annexure P2), as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that
nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the complaint case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been
so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.