Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SATINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB - CRR-2430-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 597 (7 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. REV. NO. 2430 OF 2004

DATE OF DECISION: 22.2.2006

SATINDER KUMAR

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr Jasbir Rattan, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms Reeta Kohli, DAG, Punjab.

-----

ORDER:

On 23.11.2005, the following order was passed:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner says that charge under section 420 IPC has been framed against the Sub Registrar, who registered the sale deed in discharge of his duties under section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908. Reliance is placed on judgments of this court in Ved Parkash Gupta v. State of Punjab, Crl. Revision No.636 of 1998, decided on 3.8.1998, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and another v.

Krishan Gopal Kataria and another, 1997(1) PLJ 308 and Hari Singh v. Sub Registrar, Narnaul, 1998(3) PLR 787, taking the view that mere registration of the document by the Sub Registrar in discharge of his official duties, will not be a criminal offence as the Sub Registrar could not refuse to register the document.

Learned counsel for the State seeks time to examine whether there is any distinguishing feature in the present case, what is the stand of the department about desirability of prosecuting the petitioner and whether any law has been framed or proposed to be framed to regulate management of religious endowments, property of which is said to be vested in the State by some executive order.

List again on 18.1.2006.

A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the State."

Counsel for the State says that no appeal was filed in the case of Ved Parkash (supra) and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable.

Accordingly, following the judgments referred to above, charge framed against the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is discharged.

The petition is disposed of.

February 22, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.