JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The appellant, Mulai Singh, has been convicted of fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine certain Khasras which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged and has been sentenced under section 471, read with section 466 of the Penal Code, 1860, to two years' rigorous imprisonment. It appears that appellant, Mulai Singh, was defendant to a suit in Civil Court instituted by one Balak, for the value of the produce of three mangoe trees said to be misappropriated by accused and his uncle. The accused claimed the trees as his, and in proof of his title put in certified copies of the village Khasras for years 1298, 1294, 1295, 1301, and 1302 Faslis. These certified copies had an entry to the effect that the trees in dispute were in those years in possession of one Biseswar Singh who was the appellant's grandfather. 2. The Munsif came to the conclusion that entrics in Khasra were forgeries and instituted a criminal prosecution against the appellant, which has resulted as stated. At the outset of this judgment the learned Vakil, who appears for appellaut, has argued that as the copies filed by the accused were correct copies of the Khasras, no offence under section 471, was committed by his client. He was charged not with dishonest use of forged copies but with dishonest use of forged Khasras. The learned Vakil has hot disputed the finding of the Court below that the entries in the Khasras relied upon by the appellant are interpolations, and as to this there cannot, I think, be any reasonable doubt that the entries in the Khasras are forgeries. The appellant took copies of these forged entries and put those copies forward as evidence in support of his defence. I have no hesitation in holding that tins-was a use by him of the forged document. It was further argued on the appellant's behalf that there was nothing to show that he knew or had reason to believe that the Khasras were forgeries. In my opinion the evidence on record is sufficient to show that he must have known the Khasra entries were forged. It is proved that the trees were never in Biseswar Singh's possession, and the accused must have known, therefore, that the entries were forged and had been made by some one to support the defence he set up to the suit. It is proved that the trees were never in Biseswar Singh's possession, and the accused must have known, therefore, that the entries were forged and had been made by some one to support the defence he set up to the suit. It follows from this finding that his use of the Khasras was a dishonest use. I find no ground for interference, and I dismiss the appeal.