BHAJANA NAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jeewan Singh and Jeet Singh, two brothers, were joint owners in possession of the landed property in Tehsil Jubbal in equal shares. Jeet Singh expired in the year 1989, leaving behind his widow Murtu Devi. Even though Jeet Singh was succeeded by his widow Murtu Devi, mutation of inheritance of property, in respect of share of her husband, was attested in favour of Jeewan Singh by the petitioner herein Bhajna nand, who then was Naib Tehsildar. Entry, regarding this mutation, was made by the other petitioner Ram Lal, who then was Patwari. Ram Lal Patwari made an entry to the effect that on the death of Jeet Singh, he is survived only by his brother Jeewan Singh. When this matter came to the notice of the authorities, an enquiry was made which led to filing of the First Information Report with the Police Station, Jubbal. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that Jeet Singh died issueless and mutation of inheritance could only have been attested in favour of his wife and not in favour of his brother Jeewan Singh.

(2.) When this matter came up before the learned trial Magistrate on 13.5.1999 for trial of the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 167, 218, 219 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it was alleged on behalf of the accused that factum of Jeet Singh having died issueless was verified by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar on 29.6.1989 and Bhajana Nand petitioner attested the mutation only on the basis of verification made by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar and, therefore, no offence can be said to have been committed either by Bhajana Nand or Patwari Ram Lal, who merely made an entry for the attestation of mutation.

(3.) Learned trial Magistrate in his wisdom, returned the file to the police with a direction, "to ascertain whether mutation in question dated 29.6.1989 was h fact made by the then Naib Tehsildar."