JAMAIL SINGH Vs. DILBAGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAKHTAUR Singh was the Lamberdar of village Dulwan, Tehsil -5amrala, District Ludhiana. On 10.1.1990. Dilbagh Singh (respondent herein) instituted a complaint under sections 170, 197, 198, 199,419,205,416 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P -2) dated June 11, 1990, against Jamail Singh (petitioner herein) in the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. The allegations in the complaint are that Bakhtaur Singh, father of Jarnail Singh was the Lamberdar of Patti lattan of village Dulwan. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed Sarbrah Lamberdar. Bakhtaur Singh died on March 13, 1980 but the petitioner continued to act as Lamberdar without any authority and knowing fully well that after the death of his father, he ceased to be Sarbrah Lamberdar. The petitioner had signed many documents as Lamberdar and had also received Panjotra even after the death of his father. It was further alleged that even during the life time of his father, the petitioner was never appointed as Sarbrah Lamberdar by the Collector, Ludhiana but he had been posing himself to be the Sarbrah Lamberdar and collected Panjotra. In para No. 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that Patwari halqa had sent a request to the Tehsildar, Samrala on August 30, 1989, for appointment of Lamberdar on account of the death of Bakhtaur Singh. The Tehsildar, Samrala on his turn, requested the S.D.O. (Civil) Samrala, accordingly. On a complaint having been filed by the respondent to the Tehsildar, Samrala, Patwari halqa reported on 20.12.1989 that after the death of Bakhtaur Singh Lamberdar on 13.3.1980, Jarnail Singh (petitioner) herein had been collecting and depositing panjotra posing himself as a Lamberdar.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Samrala vide his order dated 30.4.1991 (Annexure P -

(3.) PRESSING into service the identity Card (Copy Annexure P -1) learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had been shown to be a regular Lamberdar in Column No. 4 of the said Identity Card and that he had been acting as such in good faith and belief right from his appointment on May 2, 1968. He had been discharging the duties of a lamberdar without any objection whatsoever from any quarter. The Revenue Authorities had also been treating him as such. It was during 1989 when the proceedings for the appointment of a Lamberdar were started by the revenue Authorities that he made an enquiry and came to know that as a matter of fact he has appointment as Sarbrah Lamberdar and a regular lamberdar was proposed to be appointed. He then applied for being appointed as Lamberdar. Developing his arguments further he has urged that in view of the provisions of Section 21 read with section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner having worked as Lamberdar in good faith and belief was justified by law in doing so therefore no offence whatsoever was made out. He has then urged that the respondent had filed the complaint mala fide for the following reasons: