SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision-petitioner is convicted for an offence under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Against the said conviction, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 23.5.1986, in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the accused made false entries in the revenue records in regard to khewat Khatauni No. 122/173, Khasra No. 23/18/1, measuring 2 kanal 8 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Telipura, Hadbast No. 402. The case was registered on a complaint given by one Ratia Ram. According to the said complaint, the complainant had been in cultivating possession of the said land for last about 30 years. Before giving the complaint, his name stood recorded in the revenue records by the Patwari and the accused who is Patwari of the village changed the entries in the khasra girdawari in connivance with the factory owner of M/s. Shakti Foundries and the name of Shakti Foundries has been shown in the khasra girdawri to cause wrongful loss to Ratia and wrongful gain to himself. Therefore, the accused committed an offence. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused by the Police for an offence under Section 167 IPC and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed in Court. The learned Magistrate framed charge under Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code for which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses and marked documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he examined 3 witnesses in defence. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence under section 167 IPC and accordingly convicted him thereunder. As already stated, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala unsuccessfully.

(3.) ACCORDING to P.W. 1 who is the defecto-complainant, he has been cultivating the land to the extent of 2 kanals 6 marlas and the khasra girdawari showed his possession and that the accused who is a Patwari, changed the entries in the khasra girdawaris about three or four years back without giving any notice to him. According to him, the entries were made in the name of Banarsi Dass who is running a factory near his fields. He further deposed that the Tehsildar/Girdawar visited the spot on March 20, 1980 and the Girawar attested the girdawaris. P.W. 2 deposed that the Patwari changed the girdawaris in the name of M/s. Shakti Foundries without giving any notice. P.W. 3 deposed that the land of Ratia Ram adjoins his land and Ratia Ram was cultivating this land for the last about 20 years and girdawaris was also in his name. P.W. 4 is the Sub inspector of Police who filed the charge-sheet. The accused examined D.W. 1 in defence who is a Field Kanungo. He deposed that the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 to Telipur village appeared in the presence of the tenants, owners and other proprietors. D.W. 2 is the partner of M/s. Shakti Foundries. He deposed that the land adjacent to their factory was purchased by them and he installed a tubewell in 1975-76 and kothas were constructed in 1978-79 with the permission of Ratia Ram. According to him, land measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas was purchased by him in the year 1979. DW 3 is Patwari Uttam Chand who produced the Roznamcha of village Telipur. In Ex.PX. it has been mentioned that notice was issued to Ratia Ram but there is no evidence to show that the notice was served on Ratia Ram. The complainant, who is the defecto-complainant, has been examined. D.W. 1 in his cross-examination has stated that in March, 1980 to girdawaris were attested by the Girdawar. If there is no dispute of the fact that adjacent to the land of Ratia Ram, M/s. Shakti Foundries owns land. It is also in evidence that M/s. Shakti Foundries purchased half of the land from its owner and they also dug a tubewell and constructed kothas and in view of this fact, the accused-petitioner entered his name as partner of the foundry without any intention to cause any loss to the defecto-complainant. According to the evidence of Ratia Ram, the Tehsildar visited the land on the spot and in case the accused would have brought to the notice of the Tehsildar at the time of spot inspection but he has not done so. It also does not appear that he made any application for correction of the entries. On a close reading of the evidence on record, I do not find that the accused made entries in the revenue records with any motive or intention to cause loss to the defecto-complainant Ratia Ram. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-petitioner by the courts below are liable to be set-aside.