JMFC issues process against 3 accused in property deal case

PANJIM: The Judicial Magistrate First Class 'C' Mapusa has issued process against three persons in connection with a case of cheating, cheating by impersonation, forgery, and using as genuine a forged document.

TEAM HERALD
teamherald@herald-goa.com
PANJIM: The Judicial Magistrate First Class ‘C’ Mapusa has issued process against three persons in connection with a case of cheating, cheating by impersonation, forgery, and using as genuine a forged document. 
According to the complainant, the three accused persons ~ Yashwant Rayu Hegde, Candido Cicero Rosario de Nazareth and Chandrakant Pissurlekar committed offences of cheating, cheating by impersonation, forgery and using as genuine a forged document as well as conspiracy with a common intention to deceive. 
In his order the JMFC Mapusa decreed that the complainant had prima facie established the offences against the accused. 
“Keeping in mind the citations and the evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant has prima facie established the offences against the accused, issue process against the accused for offences punishable under sections 416, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120B R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code,” the JMFC decreed. 
Dipak Khandeparkar had complained before the JMFC that one Yeshwant Hegde sold a property to one Candido Cicero Rosario de Nazareth with a power of attorney of the neighbouring plot and not of the plot that he sold. He also made Chandrakant Pissurlekar, civil-cum-sub registrar at Mapusa an accused for registering the sale deed.
“The power of attorney clearly mentions that the complainant and his wife had given the power of attorney to the Accused No 1 (Yashwant) to sell the land surveyed under No 61/26 and not 62/3 of village Candolim and accused 2 (Nazareth) purchased the property even after knowing that the accused No 1 had no power to sell land under survey 62/3 to them as per conspiracy and the accused 3 (Pissurlekar) registered the sale deed in respect of Survey 62/3 of village Candolim when the power of attorney shows that accused No 1 was permitted to sell the land surveyed under No 61/26 and not 62/3 of village Candolim,” the Magistrate said in his order.

Share This Article