http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAGHUBANSH LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U. P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/1957

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. JAGANNADHADAS, B. IMAM, SYED JAFFER MENON, P. GOVINDA

CITATION:  1957 AIR  486            1957 SCR  696

ACT: Criminal Trial-Knowingly framing record in incorrect  manner -Intention  to  cause loss or injury-Indian Penal  Code,  s. 218.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant, being a Patwari, was found to have  made  an incorrect en try regarding possession over certain  disputed plots  in the khasra for the year 1358 F, and was  convicted under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Held, that in order to sustain a conviction under s. 218  of the Indian Penal Code it is not sufficient that the entry is incorrect, it. is essential that the entry should have  been made  with  intent to cause, or knowing it to be  likely  to cause,  loss or injury to some person.  The incorrect  entry in  regard to the year I358 F. could not cause any  loss  to the  complainant as alleged in the charge, because when  the entry  was alleged to be made the case under s. I45  Of  the Criminal  Procedure  Code had already been  decided  and  it could  not confer hereditary tenancy on the person  recorded to be in occupation in the year I358 F. as s. 16 of the U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act benefited  persons recorded to be in possession in the year I356 F. and not the year I358 F.,

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Criminal bAppeal No. 94  of 1955. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated September  7, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in  Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1952 arising out of the judgment and order dated  June  7,  1952, of the Court  of  Sessions  Judge  at Ghazipur in S. T. No. 11 of 1952. H.   J. Umrigar, for the appellant. G.   C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. 1957.  February 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR  J.-This is an appeal by Special leave under Art.  136

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

of  the  Constitution of India against the Judgment  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  confirming  the  conviction  of  the Appellant Raghubansh Lal under s.  218  of the Indian  Penal Code. 697 The  offence  for which the appellant was  tried  wag,  that being  a  Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai  and  thus  a public  servant, he "framed the khasra of 1358 F in  respect of  plots Nos. 170 and 74/1 of village Arazi  Mafi  Pandai", which  he  knew  "to be incorrect with intent  to  cause  or knowing  to be likely that he would thereby cause  an  undue loss to Smt.  Mahura Kunwar.  " The  facts  out of which this appeal has arisen  are  these. Two  brothers,  Mahadeo and Sahdeo, who were  members  of  a joint  Hindu  family owned certain plots of  land.   Mahadeo died leaving a widow Basera Kunwar, a son Damodar Pande  and a daughter Mahura Kuer.  Sahdeo died leaving a widow  Sundra Kuer.   On the death of Damodar Pande, one Ram  Sewak  Pande brought a suit against Smt.  Basera Kunwar and Smt.   Sundra Kuer for possession of zamindari property including sir  and sayar  left  by Damodar Pande which was dismissed.   On  the death of Basera Kunwar, Adit Pande son of Ram Sewak and  one Ganga  Pande  got  their names mutated  in  regard  to  this property. Smt.  Mahura Kuar then brought a suit for possession of  the estate  left by Smt.  Basera Kunwar against Adit  Pande  and Ganga Pande which was decreed on August 1, 1941.  On May 31, 1943, Smt.  Mahura Kuar obtained possession through Court of this estate which included the two plots Nos. 170 and 74/1. On February 25, 1950, Mahura Kuer made an application to the Sub-Divisional  Magistrate for taking proceedings  under  s. 145  of the Criminal Procedure Code against Adit  Pande  and Ganga  Pande.  The Magistrate ordered the attachment of  the land  including the two plots Nos. 170 and 74/1, and  it  is alleged  that posses. sion of these two plots was  given  to Shubh Karan as sapurdar or custodian.  The property remained under attachment from March 15, 1950, to December 18,  1950, which would comprise a part of 1357 F and a part of 1358 F. On   December  18,  1950,  the  proceedings  taken  by   the Magistrate  ended in favour of Mahura Kuar with the  finding that  her possession had been established.  Adit  Pande  and Ganga Pande were restrained from 698 interfering  with  the possession of the lady;  and  it  was ordered that the attachment should end and the possession of the plots of land in dispute be handed back to Smt.   Mahura Kuer.   The opposite party took a revision to  the  District Magistrate which was dismissed on March 28, 1951, and it  is alleged that actual possession was delivered in April, 1951. From December 1950 to April 1951, the delivery of possession remained stayed under the District Magistrate’s order. On  July  31,  1951, Smt.  Mahura  Kuar  filed  the  present complaint  in  the  Court  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate  at Ghazipur  under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code against  the present  appellant  in  which  after  reciting  the  various relevant  facts  she  alleged that the  accused  who  was  a Patwari  of the village had deliberately made wrong  entries in regard to the plots Nos. 170 and 74/1 and in the  remarks column  had  entered  the name of Adit  Pande  as  being  in possession,  and thus he had committed an offence  under  s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.  The case was committed to the court  of Session where in support of the  prosecution  Smt. Mahura  Kuer herself appeared as witness No. I and her  case was supported by two other witnesses, namely, Gouri  Shankar P.W.  2 and Naresh P.W. 3. The accused produced  in  defence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Adit Pande D.W. I and Ram Swarup D.W. 2. The  accused’s  plea in the Sessions Court was that  he  had come  to know from Shubh Karan Chowkidar that  Smt.   Mahura Kuar had won the case under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code,  but in spite of the order of the Magistrate he  found the  possession "on the spot" to be of Adit Pande,  that  he did not act according to the order of the Magistrate because he  did not receive any such order and that he did not  find Smt.   Mahura Kuar in whose favour the order was  passed  by the Magistrate to be in actual possession. The  learned  trial court found that the  accused  had  made incorrect  entries knowing them to be incorrect with  intent to  cause  "  gain to Adit Pande and loss  to  Smt.   Mahura Kuar."  He, therefore, convicted the accused  and  sentenced him to one year’s rigorous 699 imprisonment  and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default  4  months rigorous imprisonment. The  High Court confirmed the trial court’s decision on  the ground  that the delivery of possession to  the  complainant Smt.   Mahura Kuar was proved by the statements of the  lady herself  and  of Gauri Shankar and Naresh Gadaria,  who  had supported the statement of Mahura Kuar and had deposed  that Shubh Karan sapurdar had sown barley in one field and  paddy in  the  other  and  that  actual  physical  possession  was delivered  to her in April 1951.  On a consideration of  the evidence the High Court held that the entries were incorrect and had been made with a view to injure Mahura Kuar. Rule  60  of  the U.P. Land Records Manual  deals  with  the preparation  of  Khasras.  The form of the  khasra  contains columns showing the name of the cultivator, the name of  the sub-tenant  or  tenants and entries relating to  crops  etc. The  rule  requires  that  the  entries  shall  be  made  in accordance  with  the  actual facts and  provides  that  the Patwari  is responsible for all entries and he must  satisfy himself  of the facts by inquiry from the persons  concerned as  well as by field inspection and complete the  khasra  by April 30th.  In the remarks column -and this is shown by the order of commitment-the entry of the years 1357 F and 1358 F was  "qabiz badastur" (possession as before).  In coming  to the  finding of incorrectness of the entries in  the  khasra with intent to cause injury to Smt.  Mahura Kuar, the Courts below have taken into consideration the proceedings under a. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  Although the finding of the  Magistrate in those proceedings was in favour  of  Smt. Mahura  Kuar, the land in dispute had been attached and  had been given for cultivation to Shubhkaran Chowkidar, and even according  to  the  prosecution  case  the  actual  physical possession  did  not pass to Smt.  Mahura  Kuar  till  April 1951.   The  sapurdar,  Shubhkaran,  himself  has  not  been examined  as  a  witness, may be due to  the  then  existing dispute between Mahura Kuar and Shubhkaran as to the produce of the land in dispute for the period of his  custodianship. Even though the possession of the 90 700 disputed  plots  is stated to have been given  to  the  com- plainant  in  April  1951, she was not  in  actual  physical possession  before  that date, i.e., during the  period  the land was under attachment. For  the  purpose,,; of this case, the  prosecution  had  to prove:- (1)that  the  accused  knowingly framed  the  record  in  an incorrect manner; and (2)that  the  accused did this with the intent to  cause  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

with  the  knowledge  that he would thereby  cause  loss  or injury to the public or to Smt.  Mahura Kuar. It  is true that the High Court found that the accused  knew of the litigation between Mahura Kuar and Adit Pande and  in spite of this he had made an incorrect entry.  But in  order to  sustain  the conviction it is not  sufficient  that  the entries are incorrect, it is essential that the entry should have been made with the intention mentioned in s. 218 of the Indian  Penal Code.  Direct evidence proving  the  necessary intention  is, in this case, lacking and the  circumstantial evidence is too meagre to support any safe conclusion as  to the  intention  with  which the  appellant  made  the  entry complained of.  His case was that the sapurdar,  Shubhkaran, never got possession from Adit Pande.  Shubhkaran was not  a witness,  may be for the reason already stated, and  it  was contended that in the absence of the testimony of Shubhkaran the  case  of the prosecution cannot be held  to  have  been proved  at least it is not free from doubt.  But the  courts below  have considered this fact and taking all the  circum- stances  into  consideration  have held  in  favour  of  the complainant on the question of possession. The  question  still remains whether the  incorrect  entries were  made  with  the intent to cause or knowing  it  to  be likely that the accused will thereby cause loss or injury to the complainant.  It is difficult to see how any wrong entry in  regard  to the year 1358 F could cause any loss  to  the complainant.  In this case the intention has’ to be gathered from the act of the accused.  The entry could not have  been intended  to  create evidence -for being  used  against  the complainant 7O1 in  the  proceedings under s. 145 Criminal  Procedure  Code, because according to the evidence on the record the  entries were made somewhere in March and this could not have  helped Adit  Pande,  as  the magistrate  had  already  decided  the proceedings under s. 145 Criminal Procedure Code in December 1950,  and  had ordered possession to be  delivered  to  the complainant, and, therefore, this entry could not affect the result  of  the proceeding under s. 145  Criminal  Procedure Code. Mr.  Mathur  founded  his case also on s.  16  of  the  U.P. Zamindari  Abolition  and Land Reforms Act, (U.P. Act  I  of 1951), which provided that a person, who was recorded as  an occupant  of  the land for the year 1356 F and who,  on  the date mentioned in the section was in possession of the land, shall be deemed to be a hereditary tenant of the land.   But the  entry complained of is not for the year 1356 F but  for the  year 1358 F, and this entry would not have been of  any avail  to  Adit  Pande  for the purposes of  s.  16  of  the Zamindari  Abolition Act.  In the circumstances of the  case it  cannot  be said that an offence under a.  218  has  been committed by the appellant as in our opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary criminal intention. In  these  circumstances, we would allow  the  appeal,  ,set aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused.  As  a consequence the bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.