ATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Attar Singh Patwari on his conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judges of Rohtak has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) The Panchayat elections in village Naina Tatarpur, district Rohtak, were held on 31st December, 1963. Nomination papers were required to be filed on 30th December, 1963. Surja, Roop Chand and Karan Singh filed their nomination papers, the first of them for Sarpanchship and the following two for Panchship which were rejected by the Returning Officer on the short ground that each of them was holding on lease land belonging to Gram Panchayat. This was done at the instance of Om Parkash and other rival candidates in the election who had produced a copy of khasra girdawari in support of their objections, Surja obtained a copy of the relevant entries of the khasra girdawari (P.A.) from kharif 1957 to kharif 1963 from Attar Singh accused and applied to the Tahsildar for their correction. The Tehsildar after holding an enquiry ordered the correction of the entries vide his order dated the 16th March, 1965, copy Exhibit P.B. Om Parkash who was successfully elected as Sarpanch filed an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar which was dismissed on 21st July, 1965 by the Collector. The Tehsildar also ordered the correction of entries in the khasra girdawari wherein Roop Chand and Karan Singh had been shown in occupation of land belonging to the Panchayat as lessees. Thereafter Surja filed a complaint under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code against Attar Singh accused-appellant, Mange and Nathu alleging that Attar Singh Patwari had made wrong entries in the khasra girdawari at the instance of Nathu and Mange, and deprived him, Roop Chand and Karan Singh of their rights of contest the Gram Panchayat Elections. This the accused-appellant is said to have done intentionally. The Magistrate discharged Mange and Nathu accused but committed Attar Singh accused-appellant to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge held that the accused-appellant wrongly entered Surja as tenant at will of one kanal of land forming part of khasra No. 11 rectangle 13 belonging to the Gram Panchayat for kharif 1963 harvest in khasra girdawari, copy Exhibit P. F/2. He also observed that Roop Chand as well was wrongly shown in cultivation of half share of the land in khasra No. 4/1, rectangle No. 11 belonging to Gram Panchayat in the khasra girdawari, copy Exhibit P. F/3. He further concluded that Karan Singh also was wrongly shown in possession of khasra No. 14/2, rectangle No. 11 as lessee of the Gram Panchayat in that khasra girdawari copy Exhibit P. F/5. This the accused-appellant is said to have done with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause injury to Surja Roop Chand and Karan Singh.