Bapna, J.—This is a revision by Surajmal, Kanhaiyalal, Jamnalal, Radha Kishen, Chunnilal and Madholal, who were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotah, for an offence under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25/- each by judgment of 19th June, 1956. The accused filed an appeal, which was at first allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kotah, but no revision to this Court that order was set aside on 18th July, 1957, and direction was given for a fresh decision. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 9th September, 1957. Hence the revision. 2. One Shankarlal made a report at Police Station Kethun on 13th March, 1956, that he had Alsi crop standing on his field named Kasiya, but the accused Kanhaiyalal Jamnalal, Chunnilal, Radha Kishan, Madho and Surajmal cut the crop, and took it away. The police, after investigation, put a Challan against all the six accused. The case for the prosecution is that this held Kasiya belonged to one Ramnath. Hot bequeathed all his property to his daughters son Durga Prasad by a will dated 9th August, 1950. Disputes arose between Durga Prasad legatee and the theirs of Ramnath, some of whom are the accused in this case. Shankarlal is the father of Durga Prasad, who is a minor, and is looking after the latters interest. In a suit brought on behalf of Durga Prased for recovery of agricultural land, including the field in question, a decree was passed ex parte in which the accused Surajmal, Radha Kishan, Jamnalal, Chunnilal and Kanhaiyalal were parties among others. In execution of this decree Durga Prasad obtained possession over certain fields, including Kasiya field, on 2nd of June, 1954. The allegation of the complainant is that thereafter he cultivated the field and linseed was grown by him when on the 13th of March, 1956, the heirs of Ramnath came and cut away the crop. 3. Of the accused, Surajmal said that Alsi had been grown on the field by Kanhaiyalal and Baijnath, and he took part in cutting away the crop. Radha Kishan, Chunnilal, Jamnalal and Kanhaiyalal made similar statement, Madho said that he had been hired to assist in taking away the crop. 4. The trial court on evidence held that the complainant got possession in Svt. 2010, and the Girdawari for the next year Svt. Radha Kishan, Chunnilal, Jamnalal and Kanhaiyalal made similar statement, Madho said that he had been hired to assist in taking away the crop. 4. The trial court on evidence held that the complainant got possession in Svt. 2010, and the Girdawari for the next year Svt. 2011 showed the land to be Khudkasht, that is, having been cultivated by Durga Prasad through his guardian Shankerlal. He held that the oral evidence led by the complainant found support from the delivery of possession in execution of the decree of the revenue court on 2nd June, 1954, and the Gasht Girdawari for Svt. 2011. He held that the evidence of the accused that Alsi had been grown by Baij Nath and Kanhaiyalal was unreliable. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel contended that the learned Sessions Judge had committed an error in relying upon Girdawari and urged that that error was attributable to an observation of this Court in the judgment dated 18th July, 1957, that "this was a document prepared under authority of law by a public servant and a presumption arises of its genuineness under sec. 35 of the Evidence Act". It was urged that sec. 35 only speaks of relevancy but not of any presumption. The argument is correct so fas as it goes. In the context in which the observation was made it is evident that what was meant to be said was that under sec.35 the entries in Girdawari were relevant, and no formal proof was required by production of the officer who prepared them. 6. Sec. 77 of the Evidence Act permits production of certified copies in proof of contents of public documents and sec. 74 declares (among other matters) all documents forming the acts or records of the acts of public offices (legislative, judicial or executive) in India to be public documents. 7. It was next contended that the existence of the entry in the Girdawari is not proof of its correctness. The point came up for decision in Mala vs. Board of Revenue (D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 185 of 1953, decided on 1st February, 1956). 7. It was next contended that the existence of the entry in the Girdawari is not proof of its correctness. The point came up for decision in Mala vs. Board of Revenue (D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 185 of 1953, decided on 1st February, 1956). The case came up from Jaipur, and by reference to the revenue laws of the former Jaipur State, which were then in force, is was held that Khasra Girdawari was an annual register, and the law laid down a presumption that the entries made therein were true. 8. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, (Act No. ,XV of 1956) has since come into force on 1st July, 1956, and its provisions may now be examined. 9. Sec. 140 says that all entries in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary was proved. 10. Sec. 144 mentions the several documents which make up the record of rights, and mention may be made of— "(b) Khatauni, i.e., a register of all persons cultivating or otherwise holding or occupying land in the area specifying the particulars required by sec. 121 (p) such other registers as may be prescribed." 11. Sec. 132 directs that the Land and Records Officer shall maintain the record of rights and for that purpose shall annually or at such longer intervals as the Government may prescribe, cause to be prepared a set or an amended set of the registers enumerated in secs. 144 and 120, and the registers so prepared shall be called the annual registers. 12. Rule 355(b) framed under sec. 261 of the Land Revenue Act says that the Khasra is the foundation of the record of rights, and Rules 64 to 89 direct how it is to be prepared. The form prescribed and the information that is required to be entered therein shows that it is a four yearly register maintained under sec. 132 read with sec. 114 of the Act. The entries are thus to be presumed true until there is proof to the contrary. 13. It was next urged that the accused in harvesting the Alsi crop had acted bonafide and no offence had been committed. Learned counsel cited a large number of authorities in which it was laid down that where the accused harvested the crop grown by them on (may be) anothers land, the offence of theft had not been made out. 13. It was next urged that the accused in harvesting the Alsi crop had acted bonafide and no offence had been committed. Learned counsel cited a large number of authorities in which it was laid down that where the accused harvested the crop grown by them on (may be) anothers land, the offence of theft had not been made out. They are not relevant unless the defence version is to be believed. The conviction rests on a finding that the crop of Alsi which was harvested by the accused on 12th March, 1955, had been grown by Shankerlal. 14. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution evidence in this behalf was unreliable. It was urged that P.W. 1 Sobhagmal was a near relation of Shankerlal. P.W. 2 Ram Prasad was only a witness of the cutting of the crop. P.W. 3 Laxminarayan as also P.W. 4 Kishna were servants of Shankerlal and P.W. 6 was Shankerlal himself, and that this was all the evidence. 15. The criticism levelled does not make the evidence unreliable per se, but is only a pointer that the evidence is to be read with caution. P.W. 1 Sobhagamal, though a relation, has field close to Kasiya field and would naturally be in a position to see who is cultivating the field adjacent to his own. P.W. 2 Ram Prasad not only speaks as to the act of the accused in taking away the Alsi crop, but also testifies that after the possession was delivered to Durgaprasad Shankerlal, the crop was grown on it by Shanker Lal through his Hali. P.W. 3 Laxminarayan and P.W. 4 Kishna said that they were servants of Shankerlal and had sown the Alsi crop on Kasya field which came to the possession of Durga Prasad Shankerlal on 2nd June, 1954. They were Halies and their evidence cannot be disregarded merely because they were in the employment of the complainant. Who else could be produced except persons who actually were said to have cultivated the field. Shankerlal is no doubt the complainant but nothing is brought out in cross-examination which may shake his testimony. The accused have denied the fact of the possession being delivered to Shankerlal as guardian of Durga Prasad, but the fact is fully proved by documentary evidence Ex. P. 1 Dakhalnama dated 2nd June, 1954. Shankerlal is no doubt the complainant but nothing is brought out in cross-examination which may shake his testimony. The accused have denied the fact of the possession being delivered to Shankerlal as guardian of Durga Prasad, but the fact is fully proved by documentary evidence Ex. P. 1 Dakhalnama dated 2nd June, 1954. P.W. 2 Ram Prasad, who is fairly independent has also said that the fact of the delivery of possession was proclaimed in the village by the village Balai. The entry in Khasra Girdawari Ex. P. 2 for year prior to Svt. 2011 is that possession was with the accused, but for the year 2011, the field is shown as Khudkasht and the crop grown is shown as Alsi. These entries give strong support to the prosecution cafe that after getting possession in June, 1954, the complainant sowed the crop, but when it came to harvesting, the accused cut the crop in March, 1955, and took it away. The defence evidence has not been believed and rightly so. Besides a bare statement that the accused had sown the crop, there is no detail as to when the crop was sown, how much seed was put in, and there are discrepant statements as to the persons who actually did the sowing. D.W. 1 Raghu-nandan says that sowing was done by Baijnath Kanhaiyalal, and they were in, possession ever since the death of Ramnath in Svt. 2007. He does not seem to know that after Svt. 2010 there was change in possession. D.W. 2 Rampratap said sowing was done by Kanhaiyalal but said in cross-examination that sowing was done by Kanhiyalal Chunnilal, Surajmal, and Jamnalal. D.W. 3 Ram Narain said that Kanhaiyalal had sown the Alsi, D.W. 4 Rama said that Alsi was sown by Kanhaiyalal, Radhakishan, Jamnalal, and Surajmal, D.W. 5 Radhakishan said what was stated by D.W. 2 Ram Pratad. D.W. 6 Pertab said that Alsi was sown be Kanhaiyalal. 16. The accused were rightly convicted and the sentence is not at all severe. The revision is dismissed.