CHANDRABHAN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal appeal on behalf of one Chandrabhan Lal, a patwari, who has been sentenced to one year's R.I. and Rs. 50 fine or in default three months further R.I. under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, on the following charge: That you in 1341-F being a public servant as a patwari of Kanak Sarai and as such charged with the preparation of khasra of that village framed the khasra of 1341-F in respect of plots Nos. 396, 397 and 398 in a manner which you knew to be incorrect; i.e. in Col. 8 you did not show the possession of Baijnath which was actually delivered to him by the civil Court Amin on 20 July 1933 in your presence and instead put in cross marks in Col. 8 showing no change with intention of causing loss to Baijnath.

(2.) The facts alleged for the prosecution are that two brothers Raghunath and Baijnath were members of a joint Hindu family and they made a usufructuary mortgage of 16 fixed rate tenancy plots to Ramdas, Bhagwan Das and Ramsarup for Rs. 3,000 on 28 June 1926. The mortgagees gave a lease of these plots to the mortgagors who executed a qabuliat. Rent fell into arrears and the mortgagees obtained a decree for arrears of rent and on 29 May 1933, they got ejectment of the mortgagors from these plots and actual possession was given to the mortgagees by order of the revenue Court. Learned Counsel alleges that there was delay in the order of the revenue Court reaching the patwari and it did not reach him until 13 March 1934. That however was a different order and was an order for recording the name of the mortgagees.

(3.) In addition to the delivery of possession by the revenue Court there was a proceeding in the Civil Courts in which the Munsif's Court granted a decree for some other money to the mortgagors and in execution of that decree the equity of redemption of the mortgagors in these fixed rate plots was attached and sold in auction and purchased by the decree-holders and on 20 July 1933, the mortgagees obtained actual possession of the plots purchased by them in this auction sale with the exception of three plots which were in the possession of some prior mortgagees. Actual possession was obtained by the mortgagees of the three plots 396, 397 and 398 which formed the subject of the present charge. Possession was made over by the civil Court amin on 20 July 1933. Now the accused patwari was present at the time this possession was made over and he signed the dakhalnama and also a compensation statement by which the amin arranged an amount of compensation for the value of the crop which had been sown by the mortgagors. The patwari alleges that he only came at the end of this proceeding and did not understand what it was about. It is also to be noted that even after the order was received by the patwari on 13 March 1934, to record the name of the mortgagees over these plots the patwari did not comply with that order. The point which learned Counsel argues in regard to this is that the patwari thought that because under Rule 98 of the Land Records Manual the rabi partal which began on the 1 January had terminated on 15 February 1934, after that date he was not entitled to make the alteration. This view is quite wrong. under Rule 98, the khasra is completed by the 30 April. The order was received by the patwari on the 13 March and therefore it was his duty to have made the alteration.