Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Dinkar Shankar Deshmukh, Archana Shailendra Pakale, and Manohar Genba Chivhe, were sub-Registrars in the office of the Registrar at Junnar, District Pune. They were arraigned as accused in FIR No. 0298 of 2024 registered at Junnar Police Station for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged on the statement of the Range Forest Officer, alleging that forest land, which could not be dealt with, was sold by some accused to purchasers and such transactions were registered during the tenure of the applicants as sub-Registrars. The applicants apprehended arrest and filed anticipatory bail applications. The core legal issue was whether sub-Registrars can be held criminally liable for registering sale deeds of forest land when the Registration Act does not require them to enquire into the legality of the transaction or the title of the transferor. The applicants, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Mihir Desai, argued that the scope of enquiry under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 is limited to verifying execution and identity, and does not extend to examining whether the transaction is prohibited by any law. They relied on Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 331) and Govind Ramling Solpure v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 978), which held that the registering officer's duty is confined to the statutory provisions and that Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, which expanded the enquiry, was ultra vires. The State, represented by the learned APPs, contended that a communication dated 21 September 2007 from the Range Forest Officer directed sub-Registrars not to register forest land transactions, and that provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 prohibited such transactions, making the applicants criminally liable. The court analyzed Section 34 of the Registration Act and found that the registering officer is only required to enquire whether the document was executed by the proper person and to satisfy himself as to identity. There is no duty to verify title or the legality of the transaction. The court noted that the Division Bench in Govind Ramling Solpure had struck down Rule 44(1)(i) as contrary to Section 34. The court held that the executive instruction of 2007 could not override the statutory provisions, and the applicants, acting within their statutory duty, could not be attributed criminal intent. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail to all three applicants, directing them to cooperate with the investigation and appear as required.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Sub-Registrar Liability - Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC - Applicants, sub-Registrars, sought anticipatory bail for registering sale deeds of forest land allegedly prohibited by law - Court held that the scope of enquiry under Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 is limited to execution and identity, not title or legality, and therefore no criminality can be alleged for performing statutory duty - Held that anticipatory bail granted (Paras 2-12). B) Registration Act - Enquiry Before Registration - Section 34 - Limited Scope - The registering officer is only required to enquire whether the document was executed by the proper person and satisfy identity; there is no duty to verify title or legality of transaction - Held that the officer cannot refuse registration on grounds of title or prohibition (Paras 8-10). C) Registration Act - Rules - Validity - Rule 44(1)(i) of Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 - The rule requiring the registering officer to ascertain whether the transaction is prohibited by any Act is ultra vires Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 - Held that the rule cannot expand the statutory scope of enquiry (Para 11). D) Criminal Law - Mens Rea - Absence - Sub-Registrar acting within statutory duty cannot be attributed criminal intent for registering documents - Held that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions to foist criminal liability (Paras 4-5, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether sub-Registrars can be held criminally liable for registering sale deeds of forest land when the Registration Act does not require them to enquire into the legality of the transaction or the title of the transferor
Final Decision
The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications. The applicants are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest, on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or two sureties. They are to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
Law Points
- Scope of enquiry under Section 34 of Registration Act
- 1908 is limited to execution and identity
- not title or legality of transaction
- Rule 44(1)(i) of Maharashtra Registration Rules
- 1961 expanding enquiry is ultra vires
- Executive instruction cannot override statutory provisions
- Criminal liability cannot be foisted for performing statutory duty
