LAWS(P&H)-1992-9-84

JARNAIL SINGH Vs. DILBAGH SINGH

Decided On September 18, 1992
JARNAIL SINGH Appellant
V/S
DILBAGH SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BAKHTAUR Singh was the Lambardar of village Dulwan Tehsil Samrala 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 Jarnail 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 Lambardar of Patti Jattan of village Dulwan. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed Sarbrah Lambardar, Bakhtaur Singh died on March 13, 1980 but the petitioner continued to act as Lambardar without any authority and knowing fully well that after the death of his father, he ceased to be Sarbrah Lambardar. The petitioner had signed many documents as Lambardar and has 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 Lambardar by the Collector, Ludhiana but he had been posing himself to be the Sarbrah Lambardar and collected Panjotra. In para No. 6 of the complaint, it is alleged that Patwri halqa had sent a request to the Tehsildar, Samrala on August 30, 1989, for appointment of Lambardar 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 20.1.1989 that after the death of Bakhtaur Singh Lambardar on 13.3.1980, Jarnail Singh (petitioner herein) had been collecting and depositing Panjotra posing himself as a Lambardar.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala vide his order dated 30.4.1991 (Annexure P-3), came to the conclusion that there was sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore he directed that the petitioner be summoned under the said section. Following Show Cause Notice (Annexure P-5) was served on the accused :-

(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 Lambardar 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 Lambardar 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 Lambardar were started by the Revenue Authorities, that he made an enquiry and came to know that as a matter of fact he was appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar and a regular Lambardar was proposed to be appointed. He then applied for being appointed as Lambardar. 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 Lambardar 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 :-