34.Enquiry before registration by registering officer (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the person executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorised as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: PROVIDED that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (l) may be simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon- (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub- section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.
16.In Jambu Prasad v. Mohammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan AIR JUDGMENT1941 PC 16 states that the object of this Section is to make it difficult for persons to commit frauds by means of registration under Act. Further there is a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that official acts have been performed in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Registration Act. Therefore, when a document has been duly executed there will be a presumption that it has been registered in accordance with law and the onus is on the prosecution to show that the respondent has abetted in committing the offence of criminal conspiracy in the crime and has misused his position and was a party to the fraud.
17.Section 81 of the Registration Act deals with penalties which reads as follows: “81. Penalty for incorrectly endorsing, copying, translating or registering documents with intent to injure Every registering officer appointed under this Act and every person employed in his office for the purposes of this Act, who, being charged with the endorsing, copying, translating or registering of any document presented or deposited under its provisions, endorses, copies, translates or registers such document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, to any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
18.The question is whether the respondent was aware that such deeds were executed for getting unlawful gain, which may cause injury to another person as defined under Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code is a matter which can be established only on adducing evidence.
19.We are of the considered opinion that in view of the magnitude of the crime, the number of documents alleged to have been executed fraudulently, the reports referred to in the charge-sheets and the involvement of the respondent etc. could be decided only if an opportunity is given to the prosecution. The High Court, in such circumstances, was not justified in quashing all the First Information Reports and the charge-sheets in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC.
20.We make it clear that whatever we have stated above are only prima facie observations which would not bind the trial Court while deciding the criminal cases. The criminal appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
(Dipak Misra) New Delhi, September 26, 2012