The Sub-Registrar cannot inquire into the truthfulness of recitals in documents presented for registration, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

ORDER

The present petitioner was tried as accused by the Court of learned IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `trial Court') in C.C.No.28802/2005, for the offence punishable under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 , (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Registration Act') and was convicted by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.10.2012 and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.697/2012, before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Sessions Court XVII, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions Judge’s Court'), which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused by its judgment dated 17.04.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

2. The respondent herein was the complainant in C.C.No.28802/2005, which was filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Cr.P.C.), as a private complaint. It was the summary of the allegations made in the complaint by the respondent that on 10.11.2003, the present petitioner (accused in the trial Court) presented a Sale Deed for its registration before him (the complainant) who was discharging his duty as the Sub-Registrar of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, requesting for its registration in accordance with law. The subject matter of the alleged Sale Deed was an immovable property i.e., a site measuring 60 ft. x 40 ft., in total 2,400 sq.ft., said to be located in RMV 2^nd Stage, New BEL Road, Bengaluru. A recital in the document was shown to have been read as follows :

" Whereas the original sale deed vide document No.900/90-91 & possession certificate dated: 27-06-1996, have been lost and misplaced by the Vendor during transit has lodged a complaint in respect thereof and no response having been secured inspite of the complaint. She has secured a set of certified copies including duplicate possession certificate issued from the society mentioned aforesaid and is delivered to the purchaser. The Vendor hereby assures the Purchaser that the aforesaid original documents have not been pledged or offered as collateral security to any Banks or any financial institutions. Simultaneously the Vendor assures that, if the documents are traced in future, the Vendor undertakes to deliver the said documents to the purchaser."

The said document was said to be registered as a document No.GAN-1-05997-2003-04 in CD No.GAND 9, in Book No.1, with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhingar, Bengaluru.

3. Subsequently, on 23.06.2003, one Sri S.Swatantra Rao filed a complaint under Section 82 of the Registration Act claiming that the averment made as above with respect to the alleged loss of original Sale Deed was a false statement and that the original documents have been deposited by the accused with him for securing a loan amount of `30 lakhs, out of which loan amount, a sum of `20 lakhs is still due to be paid to him. In that connection, said Sri S.Swatantra Rao was also said to have filed civil suit in O.S.No.4528/2005, before the City Civil Court, at Bengaluru. It is with these contentions, the complainant is said to have claimed permission under Section 83 of the Registration Act to commence prosecution and had filed a private complaint in the trial Court, which subsequently was tried in C.C.No.28802/2005. The trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 19.10.2012, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under of the Registrat