[1957]
1957
6% SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAGHUBANSH LAL
_ti._
THE STATE OF U. P.
(JAGANNADHADAS, JAFER IMAM, Gov1NDA MENON and
J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
_Criminal_ _Trial-Knowingly_ _forniing_ _record_ _in incorrect_ _tna1111er_
_-Intention_ _to_ _cause_ _loss_ _or_ _injury-Indian_ _Penal Code,_ _s._ _218._
1"hc appellant, being a Patwari, was found to have made an
incorrect entry regarding possession over certain disputed plots in
the _khasra_ for the year 1358 F, and was eonvieted under s. 218 of
the Indian Penal Cod< .•
_Held,_ that in order to sustain a conviction undc.r 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 1358 F.
could not cause any loss to the complainant a~ alleged in the
charge, because when the entry was alleged to be made the case
under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code had already been
decided and it could not confer hereditary tenancy on the person
recorded to be in occupa1ion in the year 1358 F. as s. 16 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act benefited persons
recorded to be in possession in the year 1356 F. and not the
year 1358 F.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE Jua1so1cT10N: Crimir.al
Appeal 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._ /. _U mrigar,_ 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 of the Constitution of India against the J udg
ment of the Allahabad High Court confirming the
conviction of the Appellant Raghubansh Lal under
s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
1957
_Raghuhansh_ _Lal_
v.
_The State of U.P._
_Kapur_ _J._
##
_)_
#
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 697
The offence for which the appellant was tried was,
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 incotrect 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. Besera
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 Pantle got their names mutated in regar'.i
to this property.
Smt. M:i.hura 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 possession 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
pan 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 Pandc and Ganga Pande were restrained from
1957
_**R•1huhan.sh**_ _**Lal**_
v.
_**T Ill**_ _**31at1**_ _of_ _U._ _**P.**_
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1957)
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. Ma.hura Kuar
herself appeared as witness No. 1 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 Adit Pande, D.W. I and Ram
Swamp D.W. 2.
The accused's pita 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 Panek, 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
###### '
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 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 'GauriShankar'
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..tc:nant 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 _k.hasra_ with intent to cause injury to Smt. Mahura
Kuar, the Courts below have taken into consideration
the proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. Although the finding of the Magistrate in rhose
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 prosecutiQn 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 cwtodianship. Even though the possession of the
1957
_Razhubansh Lal_
v.
_Tiii_ _Stat1_ _of_ _U.P._
_Irajnir_ _J._
1957
_**Ra1.hub<1ns/i**_ _**Lal**_
v.
_**TM Stat1**_ _of_ _U._ _**P.**_
_ll"apur ]._
- 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957]
disputed plots is stated to have been given to the complainant in April 19.il, she was not in actual physical
passession before that date, _i.e.,_ during the period the
land was under attachment.
For the purposes of this case, the prosecution had to
prove:
(!) that the accused · knowingly framed the record
**ii1** **an** **incorrect manner ;** **an<l**
(2) that the accused did this with the intent to
cause or 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 ond 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
Cock. 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 madr the entry
complained of. His case was that the _sapurdar,_
Shubhkaran, never got possession from Adit Pande.
Shubhkaran w~s 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 circumstances 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 sec 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 tp
creiH• evidence for being used against the complainant
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 701
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 s. 218 has
been committed by _the_ appellant a§ 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._
BHA TN AGARS AND CO. LTD.
### THE UNION "· OF INDIA
(and connected petitions)
S. R. DAs C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SrNHA,
S. K. DAs and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.)
_Import and Export,_ _Control_ _of-Soda_ _ash,_ _if_ _can_ _be_ _imported_
_tuithout licence-Issue of_ _licence,_ _if amounts_ _to_ _delegated_ _legislation-_
_Trafficking in licence-Confiscation of consignments_ _and_ _seizure of_
_licence_ _by_ _Sea_ _Cu;toms Authorities-Issue of Writs-Policy Statement_
1957
_R•zhub•nsh Lal_
v.
_Tiu Stat1_ _of_ _U.P._
_Kapur]._
1957
_F1lruary_ 21
