# [1957] 1 S.C.R. 696

- **Citation:** [1957] 1 S.C.R. 696
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-09-07
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE Jua1so1cT10N: Crimir.al Appeal No. 94 of 1955
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1957-1-s-c-r-696-1366
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

1957
6%
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAGHUBANSH LAL
ti.
THE STATE OF U. P.
[1957]
(JAGANNADHADAS,
JAFER
IMAM,
Gov1NDA
MENON and
J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Knowingly forniing record in incorrect tna1111er
-Intention to cause loss or injury-Indian Penal Code, s. 218.
1"hc appellant, being a Patwari, was found to have made an
incorrect entry regarding possession over certain disputed plots in
the khasra for the year 1358 F, and was eonvieted under s. 218 of
the Indian Penal Cod< .•
Held, that in order to sustain a conviction undc.r s. 218 of the
Indian Penal Code it is not sufficient that the entry is incorrect,
it is
essential that the
entry should have been
made with intent
to cause, or
knowing it to
be likely to cause, loss or injury to
some person. The incorrect entry in regard to the year 1358 F.
could not cause any loss to the complainant
a~ alleged in the
charge, because when the entry was alleged to be made the case
under s. 145 of the
Criminal Procedure Code had already been
decided
and it could not confer hereditary tenancy on the person
recorded to be in occupa1ion in the year 1358 F. as s. 16 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act benefited persons
recorded to be in possession in the year 1356 F. and not the
year 1358 F.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
Jua1so1cT10N:
Crimir.al
Appeal No. 94 of 1955.
Appeal by special leave
from the
judgment and
order dated September 7, 1954, of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1952 arising out
of the judgment and order dated June 7, 1952, of the
Court of Sessions Judge at
Ghazipur in .S. T. No. 11
of 1952.
H. /. U mrigar, for the appellant.
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
1957. February 20.
The
Judgment of the
Court
was delivered by
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal by Special leave under
Art. 136 of the Constitution of India against the J udgment of the
Allahabad
High
Court confirming the
conviction of the
Appellant
Raghubansh
Lal
under
s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
-
)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
697
The offence for which the appellant was tried was,
that being a Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai and
thus a public servant, he "framed the khasra of 1358 F
in respect of plots Nos. 170 and 74/1 of village
Arazi
Mafi Pandai", which he knew "to
be
incotrect
with
intent to cause or knowing to be likely that he would
thereby cause an undue loss to Smt. Mahura Kunwar."
The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are
these.
Two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, who were
members of a joint
Hindu family owned certain plots
of land.
Mahadeo
died
leaving a
widow
Basera
Kunwar, a
son
Damodar
Pande
and a
daughter
Mahura Kuer.
Sahdeo died
leaving a widow Sundra
Kuer.
On the death of Damodar
Pande, one
Ram
Sewak
Pande brought a
suit
against
Smt.
Besera
Kunwar
and Smt. Sundra Kuer
for possession
of
zamindari property
including sir and sayar
left
by
Damodar Pande which was dismissed.
On the death
of Basera Kunwar, Adit Pande son of Ram Sewak and
one Ganga Pantle got their names mutated in regar'.i
to this property.
Smt. M:i.hura Kuar then brought a suit for possession
of the estate left by Smt. Basera Kunwar against Adit
Pande and Ganga Pande which was decreed on August
1, 1941.
On May 31, 1943, Smt. Mahura Kuar obtained
possession through Court of this estate
which included
the two plots Nos. 170 and 74/1.
On February 25, 1950, Mahura Kuer made an application to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate for taking proceedings under s. 145 of the
Criminal Procedure
Code
against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande. The
Magistrate
ordered the attachment of the land including the two
plots Nos. 170 and 74/1, and it is alleged that possession of these two plots was given to Shubh
Karan as
sapurdar or custodian.
The property remained
under
attachment from
March 15; 1950, to
December
18,
1950, which would comprise a part of 1357 F and a
pan of 1358 F.
On December 18, 1950, the proceedings taken
by
the Magistrate ended in favour of Mahura Kuar with
the finding that ' her possession had been es

## Text

1957
6%
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
RAGHUBANSH LAL
ti.
THE STATE OF U. P.
[1957]
(JAGANNADHADAS,
JAFER
IMAM,
Gov1NDA
MENON and
J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Knowingly forniing record in incorrect tna1111er
-Intention to cause loss or injury-Indian Penal Code, s. 218.
1"hc appellant, being a Patwari, was found to have made an
incorrect entry regarding possession over certain disputed plots in
the khasra for the year 1358 F, and was eonvieted under s. 218 of
the Indian Penal Cod< .•
Held, that in order to sustain a conviction undc.r s. 218 of the
Indian Penal Code it is not sufficient that the entry is incorrect,
it is
essential that the
entry should have been
made with intent
to cause, or
knowing it to
be likely to cause, loss or injury to
some person. The incorrect entry in regard to the year 1358 F.
could not cause any loss to the complainant
a~ alleged in the
charge, because when the entry was alleged to be made the case
under s. 145 of the
Criminal Procedure Code had already been
decided
and it could not confer hereditary tenancy on the person
recorded to be in occupa1ion in the year 1358 F. as s. 16 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act benefited persons
recorded to be in possession in the year 1356 F. and not the
year 1358 F.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
Jua1so1cT10N:
Crimir.al
Appeal No. 94 of 1955.
Appeal by special leave
from the
judgment and
order dated September 7, 1954, of the Allahabad High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1952 arising out
of the judgment and order dated June 7, 1952, of the
Court of Sessions Judge at
Ghazipur in .S. T. No. 11
of 1952.
H. /. U mrigar, for the appellant.
G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
1957. February 20.
The
Judgment of the
Court
was delivered by
KAPUR J.-This is an appeal by Special leave under
Art. 136 of the Constitution of India against the J udgment of the
Allahabad
High
Court confirming the
conviction of the
Appellant
Raghubansh
Lal
under
s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
-
)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
697
The offence for which the appellant was tried was,
that being a Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai and
thus a public servant, he "framed the khasra of 1358 F
in respect of plots Nos. 170 and 74/1 of village
Arazi
Mafi Pandai", which he knew "to
be
incotrect
with
intent to cause or knowing to be likely that he would
thereby cause an undue loss to Smt. Mahura Kunwar."
The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are
these.
Two brothers, Mahadeo and Sahdeo, who were
members of a joint
Hindu family owned certain plots
of land.
Mahadeo
died
leaving a
widow
Basera
Kunwar, a
son
Damodar
Pande
and a
daughter
Mahura Kuer.
Sahdeo died
leaving a widow Sundra
Kuer.
On the death of Damodar
Pande, one
Ram
Sewak
Pande brought a
suit
against
Smt.
Besera
Kunwar
and Smt. Sundra Kuer
for possession
of
zamindari property
including sir and sayar
left
by
Damodar Pande which was dismissed.
On the death
of Basera Kunwar, Adit Pande son of Ram Sewak and
one Ganga Pantle got their names mutated in regar'.i
to this property.
Smt. M:i.hura Kuar then brought a suit for possession
of the estate left by Smt. Basera Kunwar against Adit
Pande and Ganga Pande which was decreed on August
1, 1941.
On May 31, 1943, Smt. Mahura Kuar obtained
possession through Court of this estate
which included
the two plots Nos. 170 and 74/1.
On February 25, 1950, Mahura Kuer made an application to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate for taking proceedings under s. 145 of the
Criminal Procedure
Code
against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande. The
Magistrate
ordered the attachment of the land including the two
plots Nos. 170 and 74/1, and it is alleged that possession of these two plots was given to Shubh
Karan as
sapurdar or custodian.
The property remained
under
attachment from
March 15; 1950, to
December
18,
1950, which would comprise a part of 1357 F and a
pan of 1358 F.
On December 18, 1950, the proceedings taken
by
the Magistrate ended in favour of Mahura Kuar with
the finding that ' her possession had been established.
Adit Pandc and Ganga
Pande
were restrained
from
1957
Raghuhansh Lal
v.
The State of U.P.
Kapur J.
1957
R•1huhan.sh Lal
v.
T Ill 31at1 of U. P.
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1957)
interfering with the possession
of the lady ; and it was
ordered that
the
attachment
should
end
and the
possession of the plots of land in dispute be
handed
back to Smt. Mahura Kuer.
The opposite party took
a revision
to the District
Magistrate
which was dismissed
on
March 28, 1951,
and it
is alleged
that
actual possession was delivered in
April, 1951.
From
December 1950 to April 1951, the delivery of possession
remained stayed under the District Magistrate's order.
On July 31, 1951, Smt. Mahura Kuar filed the present
complaint in the Court of the
Judicial
Magistrate at
Ghazipur under s. 218
of the
Indian
Penal
Code
against the present appellant in which
after reciting
the various relevant facts she alleged that the accused
who was a
Patwari of
the village had deliberately
made wrong entries in regard to the plots Nos. 170 and
74/1 and in the remarks column had entered the name
of Adit Pande as being in possession, and thus he had
committed an offence under s. 218 of the
Indian Penal
Code.
The case was committed to the court of Session
where in support of the prosecution Smt. Ma.hura Kuar
herself appeared as witness No. 1 and her
case was
supported
by two
other
witnesses,
namely,
Gouri
Shankar P.W. 2 and Naresh P.W. 3.
The accused
produced in defence
Adit Pande, D.W. I and Ram
Swamp D.W. 2.
The accused's pita in the Sessions Court was that he
had come to know from Shubh Karan Chowkidar that
Smt. Mahura Kuar had won the case
under s. 145 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, but in spite of the order
of the Magistrate he found
the
possession
"on the
spot"
to be
of
Adit
Panek, that he
did not act
according to the order of the
Magistrate because
he
did not receive any such order and that he did not find
Smt.
Mahura
Kuar in
whose favour the order was
passed by the Magistrate to be in actual possession.
The learned trial court found that the accused had
made incorrect entries knowing them to be incorrect
with intent to cause "gain to Adit Pande and loss to
Smt.
Mahura
Kuar".
He,
therefore,
convicted
the
accused
and sentenced him to
one
year's rigorous
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
699
imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default 4
months rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court confirmed the trial court's decision
on the ground that the delivery of possession to
the
complainant Smt. Mahura Kuar was
proved
by the
statements of the lady herself and of 'GauriShankar'
and Naresh Gadaria, who had supported the statement
of Mahura Kuar and had deposed that Shubh Karan
sapurdar had sown barley in one field and paddy in
the
other and
that actual
physical
possession
was
delivered to her in
April 1951.
On a consideration of
the evidence the
High Court held that the entries were
incorrect and had been
made
with a view to injure
Mahura Kuar.
!
Rule 60 of the U.P. Land Records Manual deals
with the preparation of
Khasras.
The
form of the
khasra contains columns
showing the name
of the
cultivator, the name of the sub..tc:nant or tenants and
entries relating to crops etc.
The rule
requires
that
the entries shall be: made in accordance with the actual
facts and provides that the Patwari is responsible for
all entries and he must satisfy himself of the facts by
inquiry from the persons concerned as well as by field
inspection and complete the khasra by April 30th.
In
the remarks column-and this is shown by the
order
of commitment-the entry of the years 1357
F and
1358 F was "qabiz badastur" (possession as before). In
coming to the finding of incorrectness of the entries in
the k.hasra with intent to cause injury to Smt. Mahura
Kuar, the
Courts below have taken into consideration
the proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. Although the finding of the Magistrate in rhose
proceedings was in favour of Smt. Mahura
Kuar, the
land in dispute had been attached and had been given
for cultivation
to Shubhkaran Chowkidar,
and even
according to the prosecutiQn case the
actual physical
possession did not pass to Smt. Mahura Kuar till April
1951. The sapurdar, Shubhkaran, himself has not been
examined as a witness, may be due to the then existing dispute between Mahura Kuar and Shubhkaran as
to the produce of the land in dispute for the period of
his cwtodianship.
Even though the possession of the
1957
Razhubansh Lal
v.
Tiii Stat1 of U.P.
Irajnir J.
1957
Ra1.hub<1ns/i Lal
v.
TM Stat1 of U. P.
ll"apur ].
• 700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
disputed plots is stated to have been given to the complainant in April 19.il, she was not in actual physical
passession before that date, i.e., during the period the
land was under attachment.
For the purposes of this case, the prosecution had to
prove:-
(!) that the accused · knowingly framed the record
ii1 an incorrect manner ; an<l
(2) that the accused did
this with
the intent to
cause or with the
knowledge that he would
thereby
cause loss or injury to the public or to Smt.
Mahura
Kuar.
It is true that the
High
Court
found that the
accused knew of the litigation between Mahura Kuar
and Adit Pande ond in spite of this he had made an
incorrect entry.
But in order to sustain the conviction
it is not sufficient that the entries are incorrect, it is
essential that the entry
should have been made with
the intention mentioned in s. 218 of the
Indian Penal
Cock.
Direct evidence proving the necessary intention
is, in this case, lacking and the circumstantial evidence
is too meagre to support any safe conclusion as to the
intention with which the
appellant
madr the entry
complained
of.
His
case
was that
the sapurdar,
Shubhkaran, never got possession
from
Adit Pande.
Shubhkaran w~s not a witness, may be for the reason
already
stated,
and it was
contended
that
in the
absence of the testimony of Shubhkaran the case
of
the prosecution cannot be held to have been proved at
least it is not free from doubt.
But the courts below
have considered this fact
and taking all the circumstances into consideration have held in favour of the
complainant on the question of possession.
The question still
remains whether the incorrect
entries were made with the intent to cause or knowing
it to be likely that the accused will thereby cause loss
or injury to the complainant.
It is difficult to sec how
any wrong entry in regard to the year 1358 F. could
cause any loss to the complainant.
In this case
the
intention has to be
gathered
from the
act of the
accused.
The entry could not have been intended tp
creiH• evidence for being used against the
complainant
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
701
in the proceedings under s. 145
Criminal
Procedure
Code, because according to the evidence on the record
the entries were
made somewhere in March and this
could not have helped
Adit Pande, as the magistrate
had already decided the
proceedings
under s.
145
Criminal Procedure
Code in
December 1950, and had
ordered possession to be delivered to the complainant ;
and, therefore, this entry could not affect the result of
the proceeding under s. 145
Criminal Procedure Code.
Mr. Mathur founded his case also on s. 16 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition and
Land
Reforms
Act,
(U.P. Act I of 1951),
which· provided that a person,
who was recorded as an occupant of the land for the
year 1356 F and who, on
the date mentioned in the
section was in possession of the land, shall be deemed
to be a hereditary tenant of
the land.
But the entry
complained of is not for the year 1356 F but for the
year 1358 F, and this entry would not have
been of
any avail to Adit Pande for the purposes of s. 16 of the
Zamindari Abolition Act.
In the circumstances of the
case it cannot be said that an offence under s. 218 has
been committed by the appellant a§ in our opinion the
prosecution has failed to
prove the necessary
criminal
intention.
In these circumstances, we would allow the appeal,
set aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused.
As a consequence the bail bond shall stand cancelled.
Appeal allowed.
BHA TN AGARS AND CO. LTD.
"·
THE UNION OF INDIA
(and connected petitions)
S. R. DAs C.J.,
VENKATARAMA
AYYAR, B. P.
SrNHA,
S. K. DAs and GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.)
Import and Export,
Control of-Soda ash, if can be imported
tuithout licence-Issue of licence, if amounts to delegated legislationTrafficking in licence-Confiscation of consignments and seizure of
licence by Sea Cu;toms Authorities-Issue of Writs-Policy Statement
1957
R•zhub•nsh Lal
v.
Tiu Stat1 of U.P.
Kapur].
1957
F1lruary 21