DEEN DAYAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision arises out of judgment and order passed by Uearned X Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, dated 5-5-1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1993. By this judgment he dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned VIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Etah on 29-6-1983 in Criminal Case No. 448 of 1983. The learned Munsif Magistrate by the said judgment convicted the appellant under section 218, I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that Lokendra, Onkar Nath Chaturvedi and Vishwanath were the owners of plot nos. 716 and 737. Out of four brothers Omkar Nath Chaturvedi and Vishwanath sold their shares in both the plots to one Smt. Sukhdevi by means of registered deed. Smt. Sukhdevi filed an application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar on 30-11-1981. The Naib-Tahsildar passed an order direct ing the applicant, who was Qanoongo/lekhpal of the area, to delete the names of the three brothers and in that place the name of Smt. Sukhdevi be entered. The allegation is that the applicant deleted the names of all the brothers including Lokendra, who did not execute the sale deed in favour of Smt. Sukh Devi and substituted the name of Smt. Sukhdevi in that place.

(3.) SRI T. B. Islam, A. G. A. , appearing for the State has referred the relevant portion of the trial court's judgment wherefrom it appears that the said register was being kept in a open place and the applicant used to go there and nas committed the offence. When there is access of other employees to that register it cannot be presumed that the said correction/manipulation was made by the applicant and by nobody else. Since in criminal code no presumption can be drawn against the accused I find that the prosecu tion was unable to prove that it was done by the applicant.