Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) While the said order of attachment is in force, A-1 sold the first item of the above said attached property to one Mohammed Ali, son of Abdul Samadhu of Thirukulacheri of Nagapattinam District on 25.09.2008, vide Document No.4787/2008, thereby, the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, who made registration of the said property, knowingly and voluntarily assisted A-1 in disposing of the said property by violating the above said attachment order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereby, the petitioner/A3 (who was Sub-Registrar at that time) committed the offence punishable under Section 414 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
(e) In this regard, the investigating officer filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking necessary action against the petitioner/A-3 for violating the Court order, thereby the Section of law was altered from Section 409 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to the one under Sections 409 and 414 IPC and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 34 IPC. Thereafter, after completing the investigation, charge sheet (final report) has been filed before the trial Court against the petitioner/A-3 and other accused for the above said alleged offences.
... .... Thirdly, on 25.09.2008 at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry, you A3, being the then Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry, in furtherance of common intention with A1 of you, voluntarily assisted you A1 in disposing of the house situated in R.S.No.83/2A/1D at Airport Road, Lawspet, Puducherry to one Mohamed Ali, son of Abdul Samadu of Thirukalacherry, Tarangambadi TK of Nagapattinam District vide Document No.4787/2008, which you knew that the said property had been attached by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and though the copy of the said proceedings of attachment was served upon you A3, and thereby, you A1 and A3 have committed an offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC r/w 34 IPC, and within my cognizance. .... "

14. The above said statement of S.Prabagaran and D.Balaraman, recorded by the Police Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in my considered view, is sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioner/A3. Hence, it is incorrect to state that there is absolutely no material to frame charges against the petitioner/A-3.

15. Moreover, the charge has been framed against the petitioner/A-3 under Section 414 IPC, which reads as follows:

"Section 414: Assisting in concealment of stolen property: Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."