KALUSING DALESING RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -accused was the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat of village 'War, Taluka and District Dhulia. He was elected Sarpanch on December 5, 1965, defeating respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as the complainant, and continued to be such Sarpanch till April 5, 1967, when he was disqualified and removed. A meeting of the Gram -Sambha Was convened on November 26, 1966. It is common ground that no such meeting in fact was held, though there is controversy as to whether 7 members were present and the meeting had to be adjourned for want of quorum, or not a single member turned up at the meeting'. On January 8, 1967, the Secretary of the Panchayat, Dattatraya Madhav, scribed the minutes showing as though the meeting of the Gram -Sambha was held on November 26, 1966, and the said minutes were signed by the' accused as Sarpanch. The complainant took possession of the said minute book and sent it to the Collector, complaining that the said minutes were false. On January 11, 1967, the complainant lodged this complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 420 and 466, Indian Penal Code alleging that the accused deliberately prepared false minutes with a view to deceive the authorities. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate charged the accused for offence under Section 167, Indian Penal Code. The accused admitted that no meeting of the Gram Sabha in fact took place on November 26, 1966, but according to him 7 members were present and the meeting had to be adjourned for want of quorum. He admits his signature on the minutes. His case, however, is that the complainant himself dictated the said minutes to the Secretary and ho put his signature thereon in a hurry without reading the same.

(2.) AT the trial, the complainant examined himself and four other witnesses, who were shown to be present at the meeting according to the minutes, but who have deposed on oath that they never attended the meeting. The accused examined the Secretary, who stated that he had written the minutes at the instance of the complainant and obtained the signature of the accused, without reading out the said minutes to him. Two more defence witnesses also were examined by the accused, but reference to them is, however, unnecessary. Both the Courts accepted the complainant's case and disbelieved the say of the accused as well as his witnesses and convicted the accused for offence under Section 167, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(3.) THE main contention of Mr. Kotwal however is that assuming that the facts found by the Courts below arc true, even then no offence under Section 167, Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. I find much substance in this contention of Mr. Kotwal. Before any accused is said to have committed an offence of framing incorrect document with intent to cause injury, within the meaning of Section 167, Indian Penal Code, four ingredients are required to be proved: (1) It must be proved that the accused was a public servant. (2) Then it must also be proved that the accused was charged with the preparation of the said document. (3) It must also be proved that the accused in fact framed or prepared the said document in his capacity as such public servant. (4) Lastly, it must be proved that either he intended to cause injury or knew that injury was likely to be caused by his act to any person.