Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 791 (PNJ)

Surjit Kaur v. Jaimat Rai

2010-02-04

RAJAN GUPTA

body2010
Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1 The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment dated 24th November, 1999, delivered by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Sections 218 IPC in a complaint filed by the complainant/appellant. 2 Brief factual background of the case is that complainant Surjit Kaur filed a complaint against accused Jaimat Rai (Ex-Patwari) alleging that the accused made overwriting in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, thereby substituting Killa No. 13/2 for 13/1 and the same position was repeated in the Khasra Girdawari. According to complainant, the accused did this as Killa No. 13/1 is a fertile and valuable land. By this act, the accused caused loss to the complainant as certain persons had taken loan against land comprised in Killa No. 13/2. The complainant alleged that she came to know about this act of the accused on 28.3.1991, immediately where after Gurdev Singh, son of the complainant, moved an application before Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. However, no action was taken. Resultantly, the instant complaint was lodged. The complaint was dismissed on 19th September, 1992 by the trial court. However, on a revision being filed by the complainant, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa set-aside the said order, vide order dated 25th August, 1993 and directed the trial court to consider the matter afresh. On 1st March, 1995, the accused was summoned to face trial under Sections 218 and 425 IPC. He was later charged for offence under Section 218 IPC only vide order dated 12th September, 1998. The complainant thereafter adduced her evidence. She stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and examined two other witnesses i.e. Joginder Singh Patwari and Gurdev Singh as PW-2 & PW3 respectively. On being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused gave the version that the complaint was motivated as Gurdev Singh had to pay Rs. 50,000-55,000/- as arrears of land revenue and when he was asked to deposit the same by the accused, he lodged the instant complaint through his mother. In defence, the accused examined one witness namely, Krishan Lal as DW1. After considering the evidence led before the court and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, it came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond doubt and thus accused was entitled to acquittal. In defence, the accused examined one witness namely, Krishan Lal as DW1. After considering the evidence led before the court and the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the parties, it came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the case beyond doubt and thus accused was entitled to acquittal. Aggrieved, the complainant has preferred the instant appeal. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that accused was not guilty. According to him, Killa No. 13/1 (4-0), comprised in Rect. No. 77 was owned by Ujagar Singh, husband of the complainant as was evident from the Jamabandis for the years 1961-62, 1968-69. Later in Jamabandis for the years 1978-79 and 1983-84, the complainant was shown as owner. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the overwriting was made and Killa Number was changed to 13/2, against which sons of one Kaka Singh had taken a loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the Punjab National Bank by mortgaging the said Killa No. 13/2 with the said bank. This overwriting, according to learned counsel, was done by the accused to cause loss to the complainant burdening her with discharge of loan of Rs. 40,000/-. He has further submitted that cogent evidence on record in support of the case of the complainant has been ignored from consideration by the court below. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, refuted the contentions and submitted that alleged overwriting was in fact a clerical mistake and same was totally unintentional. According to learned counsel, the clerical mistake had been later on corrected and loan had been repaid by the original loan and mortgage had been redeemed. According to learned counsel, due to change in the relevant entry in the Farad Badar, the grievance of the complainant had been redressed. He has further submitted that from the evidence led by the complainant, the ingredients of offence under Section 218 IPC were not made out and thus, the accused was entitled to acquittal. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record received from the trial court. 6 The complainant while deposing as PW1 stated that the accused had intentionally made overwriting in the Jamabandi as her land was valuable land and situated near to the grain market. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record received from the trial court. 6 The complainant while deposing as PW1 stated that the accused had intentionally made overwriting in the Jamabandi as her land was valuable land and situated near to the grain market. This apart, there was a loan of Rs. 40,000/- standing on the land which had been shown to be her ownership as a result of overwriting. Another witness, who appeared in support of case of the complainant, is Joginder Singh Patwari. This witness placed on record various Jamabandis and stated that he remained posted as Patwari in place of the accused from 15.10.1991 to 25.11.1991. He deposed that in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, there was overwriting in both the entries i.e. 13/2 and 13/1. PW-3 Gurdev Singh Lambardar, who is son of the complainant, corroborated the version of her mother. He deposed on the same lines as his mother and submitted that Killa No. 13/2 was of less value and it was far from the grain market. The same had intentionally been mutated by the accused in their favour, depriving them of valuable land comprised in Killa No. 13/1. This witness also produced certified copies of Jamabandis, which were exhibited as Ex.P1 to P5 and Khasra Girdawaris which were exhibited as Ex. P6 to P8. The defence witness produced by the accused on the other hand, deposed that son of the complainant was in arrears of land revenue of Rs. 59449.23 Ps. and gave detail of the balance amount due towards him as on 1st October, 1987. The document (balance sheet) produced by him in court was exhibited as Ex. D-1. 7 The only question which arises before this court, is whether relevant entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 was changed by the accused intentionally or it was a mere lapse on his part. A perusal of evidence of the three prosecution witnesses throws no light on any intention on part of the accused to commit the crime. Their statements merely show that instead of numeral `1 in the entry `13/1, numeral `2 was substituted by the accused and that the land comprised in Killa No. 13/1 is more valuable than that in 13/2. Their deposition, however, does not show any criminal intent or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause loss to the complainant. Their statements merely show that instead of numeral `1 in the entry `13/1, numeral `2 was substituted by the accused and that the land comprised in Killa No. 13/1 is more valuable than that in 13/2. Their deposition, however, does not show any criminal intent or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause loss to the complainant. It is admitted position that the relevant entry was later on corrected as this power is vested in the concerned authority under point 7.29 of Haryana Land Records Manual. It is also admitted that the necessary correction was done vide Ex. D-7. This apart, it appears that Killa Nos. 13/1 and 13/2, measuring 4 Kanals each, are situated adjacent to each other. The stand of the complainant that Killa No. 13/1 is more valuable than 13/2 is also doubtful. The complainant has not been able to show how the accused would stand to gain by making wrong entry as alleged. Thus, the element of criminal intention on part of the accused to manipulate the revenue record is missing. 8 In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that sufficient evidence is not on record, which points towards intention of the petitioner to commit offence under Section 218 IPC. The said Section is attracted only when there is an intent on the part of a public servant to frame incorrect record or writing or when he prepares any such record knowing it to be incorrect with intent to cause or knowing it likely to cause loss or injury to public or any person. This is not the situation in the present case. 9 I, thus, find no ground to interfere in the finding arrived at by the rial court, thereby acquitting the accused of charge under section 218 IPC. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.