SULTAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner has challenged the framing of charge of an offence Under Section 379, I.P.C. against him by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ladnu, by his order dated 22 -6 -1989.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. and have perused the record.

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. If may at once be stated that from the report prepared by the Inspector, Land Records, it clearly appears that as a matter of fact the building material had hot been taken possession of by the Land Records Officer and later, of course, some interpolation appears to have been made in the report In the middle of the report the Land Records Inspector had mentioned .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Then at the bottom of the report a further line appears to have been inserted by was of interpolation in a small hand, in the available space sayings .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Now this part of the report at the bottom of the report is clearly in contravention of what has been stated in the body of the report earlier. According to the earlier report the material could not be removed from the spot and taken possession of, where as in the bottom it is stated that possession has been taken of the material lying on the spot. Even if for the sake of argument the word ljdkjh rglhy in between rFkk and