Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mutation dda in State vs . : Sanjeev Kumar Khanna on 1 August, 2018Matching Fragments
FIR No. 524/03 State V/s. Sanjeev Kumar Khanna 14 of 26
19. It may be noted that as per record letter dated 23.04.2001 was produced by PW1 Dimple Vaid (photocopy) during her cross examination. This letter is a show cause notice issued by DDA to the accused herein calling an explanation from the accused asking him to explain why mutation done in his favour on 15.03.2001 should not be cancelled. As per testimony of PW5, letter dated 23.04.2001 was indeed issued by DDA as a show cause notice to the accused (see his cross examination wherein he voluntarily speaks of letter dated 23.04.2001 and deposes that the same was a show cause notice issued by DDA to the accused qua the property in question). This show cause notice was issued on the complaint of PW1 / Dimple Vaid. Now, in response to the said show cause notice, accused appears to have written a letter to DDA. The said letter was marked as Mark PW5/C which was admitted by PW5 to have been indeed written to DDA by the accused. As per Mark PW5/C which is dated 24.04.2001, accused claimed that he was not aware that married daughters are legal heirs of a given person and therefore he had claimed in his documents given to DDA (at the time of applying for mutation with DDA) that he is the only legal heir of his grandfather. Vide said letter, he prayed to DDA that mutation done in his favor may be cancelled. With the said letter he had enclosed an affidavit dated 24.04.2001 disclosing the names of Reeta Kapoor and Dimple Vaid as the other legal heirs of his grandfather and had also sent the original mutation letter to DDA for necessary action.
30. Thus, it appears, that as per Mark PW5/C [which, this court, for reasons already stated above in this judgment, has found to be admissible in evidence], accused was persuaded to think, that married sisters had no right in the property in question. He, candidly admitted this in his letter to DDA being letter dated 24.04.2001 Mark PW5/C and himself requested the DDA to cancel his mutation. Thus, it appears that the claim of the accused as being the sole legal heir of Maharaj Krishan Khanna was based on a wrong understanding of the accused qua the legal status of his sisters qua the property in question. The accused had applied to DDA for mutation with the understanding that he is the sole legal heir of his grandfather. He, it appears, did not intend to deceive either the DDA or his sisters. When the accused applied to DDA for mutation of the property in question, he had a certain belief qua the legal status of he himself and of his sisters. He applied to DDA with the said belief. The belief was questioned by the DDA in its show cause dated 23.04.2001 Ex. PW1/DB. To the said question, accused candidly explained his belief and described it to DDA which had led him to apply to DDA for mutation and requested for cancellation of his mutation on 24.04.2001 vide Mark PW5/C. If FIR No. 524/03 State V/s. Sanjeev Kumar Khanna 22 of 26 the aforesaid acts of the accused are seen in entirety, it is difficult to say that the accused had a guilty mind or the necessary mens rea or the intention to deceive the DDA. It is pertinent to note herein that the accused herein DID NOT claim before the DDA in Ex. PW2/B to Ex. PW2/E [the documents wherein the claim of sole heirship is made by the accused before DDA] that he is the SOLE CHILD OF HIS FATHER OR THE ONLY GRANDCHILD OF HIS GRANDFATHER. He simply called himself as the sole legal heir of his grandfather. Thus there is a possibility that the accused in fact understood that, save and except he himself, his married sisters are not the legal heirs of his grandfather and therefore he led to make such a claim before the DDA. This possibility is manifested in letter written by the accused to DDA on 24.04.2001 Mark PW5/C, at the first available opportunity given to the accused by DDA to explain his position.
32. Even otherwise, the conduct of the accused to apply to the DDA for cancellation of his mutation, which was done in his favor just a month back in March 2001, shows or atleast opens up a possibility that the accused did not intend to deceive the DDA. He applied to DDA under a belief. As soon as he realized his mistake, he moved to correct it. This subsequent conduct of the accused, right after the mutation, at the very first opportunity given to the accused by DDA to explain his stand on the issue, is, in my humble opinion, very relevant and crucial act on the part of the accused for this court to understand and try to deduce whether the accused intended to deceive the DDA when he applied for mutation or not. This act of the accused persuades this court to think that the accused never intended to intentionally deceive the DDA. He did apply to DDA for mutation but under a mistaken belief and there was no mens rea or the guilty intention at that time to fool the DDA.
33. Simply put, from the record, it cannot be said that the accused herein had the "intention to deceive the DDA at the time of applying for mutation of the given property" Had it been the case, why would he ask the DDA to cancel his mutation? He would have contested the show cause. He would have resisted it. But, in this case, as per Mark FIR No. 524/03 State V/s. Sanjeev Kumar Khanna 24 of 26 PW5/C, he simply accepted his mistake and himself filed an affidavit giving the names of his sisters. He gave reasons for calling himself as the sole legal heir of his grandfather in Ex. PW2/B to PW2/E. And then called upon the DDA to cancel his mutation and even sent his original mutation letter dated 15.03.2001 to DDA to cancel his mutation. These subsequent acts of the accused on 24.04.2001, which were very close to the time (in March 2001) when the mutation was applied for by the accused and granted by the DDA, show that the accused lacked the necessary guilty or dishonest intention which is a sine qua non for an offence of cheating or the one made punishable under section 420 IPC.