In a significant judgment that will change the way beneficiaries of multiple plot allotment are prosecuted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that misrepresentation for allotment of a second flat will not amount to cheating if it can be verified and detected.
“Even if it is assumed that the prosecution story is correct and a wrong representation was made, the housing board had the means to verify whether any property stood in the name of the accused or her husband or any other family member. It being so, even the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 420 of the IPC are not made out,” the High Court has ruled.
The judgment by Justice Kuldip Singh, likely to have a bearing on the ongoing HUDA multiple plot allotment cases, came on a plea of the UT against Savinder Jeet Kaur.
The Administration had challenged a judgment dated August 18, 2015, passed by the UT Sessions Judge, vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 5, 2014, passed by the UT Judicial Magistrate (First Class) were reversed and the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against her under Section 420 of the IPC.
The respondent was sought to be prosecuted on the grounds that her husband owned a house in Sector 45-C. However, by concealing the fact, she got another flat in Sector 44-B. It was argued on the respondent’s behalf that the flat allotted in Sector 44-B was applied for in 1983 before the acquisition of the house in Sector 45-C in May 1984.
Taking up the matter, Justice Kuldip Singh asserted: “In this case, the allegations are that while seeking the allotment of the second flat, a misrepresentation was made. I am of the view that a misrepresentation, which can be verified and detected, will not amount to cheating…. The present application for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed”.
The High Court, in the HUDA multiple plot allotment case, had recently sought details of employees allotted more than one plot in the state. Taking up the multiple plot allotment case, the court had also sought details of the progress made so far in the matter by the special investigation team.
The court had also asked the state and other respondents to update the information already furnished on defence personnel allotted more than one plot.
“Even if it is assumed that the prosecution story is correct and a wrong representation was made, the housing board had the means to verify whether any property stood in the name of the accused or her husband or any other family member. It being so, even the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 420 of the IPC are not made out,” the High Court has ruled.
The judgment by Justice Kuldip Singh, likely to have a bearing on the ongoing HUDA multiple plot allotment cases, came on a plea of the UT against Savinder Jeet Kaur.
The Administration had challenged a judgment dated August 18, 2015, passed by the UT Sessions Judge, vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated August 5, 2014, passed by the UT Judicial Magistrate (First Class) were reversed and the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed against her under Section 420 of the IPC.
The respondent was sought to be prosecuted on the grounds that her husband owned a house in Sector 45-C. However, by concealing the fact, she got another flat in Sector 44-B. It was argued on the respondent’s behalf that the flat allotted in Sector 44-B was applied for in 1983 before the acquisition of the house in Sector 45-C in May 1984.
Taking up the matter, Justice Kuldip Singh asserted: “In this case, the allegations are that while seeking the allotment of the second flat, a misrepresentation was made. I am of the view that a misrepresentation, which can be verified and detected, will not amount to cheating…. The present application for grant of leave to appeal stands dismissed”.
The High Court, in the HUDA multiple plot allotment case, had recently sought details of employees allotted more than one plot in the state. Taking up the multiple plot allotment case, the court had also sought details of the progress made so far in the matter by the special investigation team.
The court had also asked the state and other respondents to update the information already furnished on defence personnel allotted more than one plot.
Comments
Post a Comment