The petitioner has been convicted under Section 167 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week.

The prosecution case was that the petitioner who was a Patwari of village Goel Tehsil Jammu and was charged with the preparation of the revenue record intentionally made a false entry in the revenue record pertaining to Khasra No. 808/452 of the said village. According to the prosecution, the previous entries described one Mohan Lal as a co-sharer proprietor of plot and the possession of the complainant Gopal Singh was recorded as Gair maoroosi bila lagan bawajah tasawar malkiyat khud."(That is to say as a tenant paying no rent but asserting adverse possession) The petitioner is alleged to have changed this entry in Kharif 1960 by showing, Gopal Singh as a tentant paying half rent to the proprietor. The allegation of the complainant was that as the petitioner had demanded some bribe from the complainant, who in fact, paid some amount of money to the Patwari but not the full amount which he desired, hence the petitioner made a false entry with respect to the status of the complainant. It was also alleged that prior to the entry in question but after the previous entries there was a civil litigation between Bhagwat Kumar, son of Mohan Lal, the proprietor, and the complainant Gopal Singh which was ultimately compromised by which the title of Gopal Singh by adverse possession was accepted. The complainant thus alleged that the petitioner made the wrong entry in order to harm him.

The defence was that the entry was made in due discharge of his duties by the petitioner on such information as he had got from the local people and even if the entry was wrong, it was due to a bona fide mistake on his part.

Both the courts below after consideration of the entire evidence have come to clear finding that the entry in question made by the petitioner was wrong on a point of fact. The courts below have further inferred that the petitioner had made the wrong entry with a clear intention to harm the complainant. It is this part of the finding of the courts below that has been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me.

In the first place, Mr. Das submitted that in view of the fact that the erstwhile proprietor Bhagwat Kumar compromised the civil litigation and a compromise decree was passed by the which the complainants right as a proprietor was confirmed hence the entry even if wrong was not likely to cause any harm to the complaint and thus it cannot be said that the accused had the requisite intention required by Section 167 R. P. C. while making the wrong entry. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not without substance. Section 167 of the Ranbir Penal Code runs thus: -

Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."

Before an accused is convicted under this section, it must be shown that the accused had a clear intention to harm the complainant by making a wrong entry. A mere wrong entry by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charge to the accused under this section. It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused had a clear intention to harm the complainant in making a false entry. The courts below appear to have overlooked certain important admitted facts appearing in the prosecution evidence which clearly negative the presence of any means read on the part of the petitioner in the present case. To begin with, the only motive attributed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document