IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a misunderstanding of legal orders does not constitute the requisite intent for criminal offences under the IPC, particularly in cases involving official duties.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 31/8/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants/accused Nos. 2 and 3 against their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur dtd. 26/2/2013 for the offences punishable under Ss. 197 and 198 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."). Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur on conviction had sentenced accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on both counts and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 each on both counts.

3. The facts are as follows:-

Non-applicant No.2, who died during the pendency of this revision application had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balapur against three accused. In this proceeding after death of complainant, an application was made for bringing on record the legal representatives of the complainant/non-applicant No.2. This Court (Coram :-Manish Pitale, J.), by order dtd. 18/7/2019, rejected the said application by taking note of the fact that the State i.e. non-applicant No.1 was very much present to assist the Court.

4. It was stated by the complainant that he and accused No.2 are brothers. There was a dispute between the complainant and accused No.2 with regard to the right in field Survey No.146/1 ad-measuring 0.66 H.R. It was the case of the complainant that since 1959 he was cultivating the said land as a tenant. The land belongs to Gulam Chisti Masjid, a registered trust. The accused Saiyyad Mahemood Kadri at the relevant time was Manager of the trust. The trust has recognized the complainant as a tenant of the land in the year 1965-66 pursuant to the order of competent revenue authority dtd. 19/8/1966. Accused No.2, the brother of the complainant claimed right and share in the said land. The dispute started between the complainant and his brother with regard to the title and possession of the said land. The complainant stated in his complaint that accused No.2 with his son tried to take forcible possession of the land. The complainant, therefore, filed civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Balapur seeking relief of injunction. In the said suit, the application filed by the complainant for temporary injunction was rejected. The appeal filed by the complainant against the said order was allowed and the said order was set aside. The temporary injunction was granted in his favour. The accused No.2 filed revision/petition bearing No.114/2001 in this Court and challenged that order. During the pendency of the revision petition, a stopgap arrangement/ compromise was arrived at between the parties. The complainant and the accused No.2 filed joint pursis. In the said pursis, the complainant stated that he would allow accused No.2 to cultivate half portion of the disputed land till decision of the suit, but the accused No.2 should not take undue advantage of the said compromise set out in the pursis.

5. The complainant stated that despite specific order by the High Court, accused Nos.1 and 2, in collusion, forged the revenue record. On the application of the accused No.2, the accused No.3, who is Talathi, entered the name of the accused No.2 in 7/12 extract as a tenant in terms of the order of the High Court as mentioned above. Mutation entry was carried out. On these allegations, the process was issued against the accused.

6. The complainant examined himself as (CW-1). He also examined one independent witness as Saiyyad Shafik Ahemad Kadri (CW-2). Learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, found accused Nos.2 and 3 guilty and sentenced them as above. The appeal preferred against the said judgment and order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The applicants/accused are therefore before this Court in revision.

7. I have heard Shri