given the value of the subject flat at Rs.5,65,000/- in the year 2008. The contention of the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 is that the land and construction value always would be fluctuating. It is not constant at any point of time. When the market value of the land, building and flats is fluctuating always, it is difficult to arrive at correct value of the building at a particular point of time. The agreements in question were made in the year 2005, but the valuation of the property was made in the year 2008 by the valuer of the bank. In the course of investigation, the investigator had not valued the property from any other person. The investigator relied on the valuation made by the valuer of the bank. The investigator ought not have relied on the valuation given by the valuer of the bank, but he could have depended on the value of the property at relevant point of time. Further, there should be atleast some oral evidence of the neighbours who purchased the same flats in the vicinity to compare the questioned certificates. There is no such record. In a criminal trial, the accused cannot be prosecuted without there being sufficient material, except alleging that the accused Nos.4 and 5 have inflated the value of the subject flats. There is no material to substantiate the allegations. Under these circumstances, proceeding with the trial of the case against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 would be a fertile exercise. There are no sufficient grounds to proceed against these petitioners-A.4 and A.5 for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
