MEHARBAN ALI KHAN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from the discharge of a patwari of an offence under the provisions of Section 218, I.P.C. The learned Judge is wrong both in law and fact. In my opinion the Magistrate arrived at a correct decision on the question of law. In a certain revenue suit brought by a tenant against the zamindar Sajjad Ali Khan for commutation of rent in kind into cash rent the patwari Sita Ram was examined as a witness. The revenue Court is generally in a hurry, and to avoid taking down a statement in detail the patwari was directed to prepare a written statement (fard) according to his papers and file it. He prepared a "fard" and made a statement on oath. I file "fard" exhibit A. It is prepared by me according to settlement rates and the papers of 1333 Fasli.

(2.) The suit was heard ex parte, so there was no cross-examination. It appears that in the village record of 1333 Fasli a rent of Rs. 110 payable by the plaintiff- tenant was entered. The zamindar subsequently appealed to the higher revenue Courts on the ground that no commutation of rent was necessary as the rent payable was already payable in cash at the rate of Rs. 110 a year.

(3.) Subsequently the zamindar prosecuted Sita Ram for preparing a wrong record in terms of the provisions of Section 218, I.P.C. The trial Court of the Magistrate rightly pointed out that on proof of Sita Ram's statement being false he could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193 for giving false evidence, but that no offence under Section 218 was made out. The provisions of that section are: Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, and with a certain intention, is said to commit an offence under that section.