B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are that the Tehsildar, Bhatinda, filed a complaint against the present petitioner under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to other allegations in the complaint the petitioner had obtained half-share in a house situated in Bhatinda in exchange of a plot from one Virinder Kumar by means of a registered deed. In that deed the value of the house had been shown as Rs. 10,000. On an enquiry, the Collector, Bhatinda found that the value of the house was Rs. 22,000. The petitioner thus cheated the State to the tune of Rs. 480 in respect of the stamp duty plus registration charges.
(2.) VIDE order dated 19th July, 1982, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, exempted the personal appearance of the Tehsildar till further orders and allowed him to appear through the Additional Public Prosecutor. He also ordered for the summoning of the accused. In the present petition the petitioner prays for the quashing of the complaint as well as the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by which she had been summoned to appear in his Court for the reasons given in para No. 14 of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of section 47-A of the Act introduced by the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1982, the complaint filed by the Tehsildar has become infructuous. This argument has no force. Section 47-A lays down how the instruments which have been under valued, have to be dealt with. If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument relating to the transfer of any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. Thus that section only lays down the procedure for the determination of the proper duty payable on an instrument relating to the transfer of property. Section 64 of the Act lays down the penalty for omission to comply with the provisions of section 27. Therefore, section 47-A and 64 of the Act provide for different contingencies. Moreover, in the present case, the complaint was filed prior to the introduction of section 47-A of the Act. Hence in the light of the above discussion it cannot be said that the penalty imposed by section 64 of the Act for omission to comply with the provisions of section 27 is waived of after the Registering Officer makes a reference to the Collector under section 47-A of the Act for determination of the proper duty payable on an instrument of transfer of property.
(3.) THE next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not examine on oath the complainant and his witnesses, if any, as required by Section 200 of the Code. However, a proviso has been appended to that section, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :- "200 xx xx xx xx Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses :- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or xxxx xxxx xxx xxx" In the present case, in view of the reply filed by the respondent-State it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tehsildar had been duly authorised under section 70 of the Act to file complaint in respect of the offences punishable under that Act. Therefore, the Tehsildar, being a public servant, had filed the complaint in the discharge of his official duties and hence in view of the above provisions, the learned trial Court was not bound to examine the complainant and the witnesses.;