Mahura Kuar, the land in dispute had been attached and had been given for cultivation to Shubhkaran Chowkidar, and even according to prosecution case the actual physical possession did number pass to Smt.
The accused produced in defence Adit Pande, D.W. 1 and Ram Swarup D.W. 2.
On July 31, 1951, Smt.
The rule requires that the entries shall be made in accordance with the actual facts and provides that the Patwari is responsible for all entries and he must satisfy himself of the facts by inquiry from the persons companycerned as well as by field inspection and companyplete the khasra by April 30th.
The sapurdar, Shubhkaran, himself has number been examined as a witness, may be due to the then existing dispute between Mahura Kuar and Shubhakaran as to the produce of the land in dispute for the period of his custodianship.
The property remained under attachment from March 15, 1950, to December 18, 1950, which would companyprise a part of 1357 F and a part of 1358 F. On December 18, 1950, the proceedings taken by the Magistrate ended in favour of Mahura Kuar with the finding that her possession had been established.
170 and 74/1 and in the remarks companyumn had entered the name of Adit Pande as being in possession, and thus he had companymitted an offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accuseds plea in the Sessions Court was that he had companye to know from Shubh Karan Chowkidar that Smt.
Mahura Kuar then brought a suit for possession of the estate left by Smt.
Mahura Kuar obtained possession through Court of this estate which included the two plots Nos.
170 and 74/1, and it is alleged that possession of these two plots was given to Shubh Karan as sapurdar or custodian.
Basera Kunwar against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande which was decreed on August 1, 1941.
The offence for which the appellant was tried was, that being a Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai and thus a public servant, he framed the khasra of 1358 F in respect of plots Nos.
Even though the possession of the disputed plots is stated to have been given to the companyplainant in April 1951, she was number in actual physical possession before that date, i.e., during the period the land was under attachment.
From December 1950 to April 1951, the delivery of possession remained stayed under the District Magistrates order.
The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are these.
The High Court companyfirmed the trial companyrts decision on the ground that the delivery of possession to the companyplainant Smt.
On May 31, 1943, Smt.
Adit Pande and Ganga Pande were restrained from interfering with the possession of the lady and it was ordered that the attachment should end and the possession of the plots of land in dispute be handed back to Smt.
Mahura Kuar till April 1951.
The opposite party took a revision to the District Magistrate which was dismissed on March 28, 1951, and it is alleged that actual possession was delivered in April, 1951.
The cases was companymitted to the companyrt of Session where in support of the prosecution Smt.
On February 25, 1950, Mahura Kuer made an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for taking proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against Adit Pande and Ganga Pande.
Mahura Kuer.
Mahura Kuar, the Courts below have taken into companysideration the proceedings under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Mahura Kunwar.
Sundra Kuer for possession of zamindari property including sir and sayar left by Damodar Pande which was dismissed.
In the remarks companyumn and this is shown by the order of companymitment the entry of the years 1347 F and 1358 F was qabiz badastur possession as before.
136 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court companyfirming the companyviction of the Appellant Raghubansh Lal under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
170 and 74/1.
Mahura Kuer herself appeared as witness No.
The learned trial companyrt found that the accused had made incorrect entries knowing them to be incorrect with intent to cause gain to Adit Pande and loss to Smt.
Mahura Kuar in whose favour the order was passed by the Magistrate to be in actual possession.
The Magistrate ordered the attachment of the land including the two plots Nos.
On the death of Damodar Pande, one Ram Sewak Pande brought a suit against Smt.
Mahura Kuar filed the present companyplaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Ghazipur under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant in which after reciting the various relevant facts she alleged that the accused who was a Patwari of the village had deliberately made wrong entries in regard to the plots Nos.
On the death of Basera Kunwar, Adit Pande son of Ram Sewak and one Ganga Pande got their names mutated in regard to this property.
170 and 74/1 of village Arazi Mafi Pandai, which he knew to be incorrect with intent to cause or knowing to be likely that he would thereby cause an undue loss to Smt.
1 and her case was supported by two other witnesses, namely, Gouri Shankar P.W. 2 and Naresh P.W. 3.
Mahura Kuar had won the case under s. 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but in spite of the order of the Magistrate he found the possession on the spot to be of Adit Pande, that he did number act according to the order of the Magistrate because he did number receive any such order and that he did number find Smt.
Mahura Kuar was proved by the statements of the lady herself and of Gauri Shankar and Naresh Gadaria, who had supported the statement of Mahura Kuar and had deposed that Shubh Karan sapurdar had sown barley in one field and paddy in the other and that actual physical possession was delivered to her in April 1951.
Basera Kunwar and Smt.
Kapur, J. This is an appeal by Special leave under Art.
Although the finding of the Magistrate in those proceedings was in favour of Smt.
On a companysideration of the evidence the High Court held that the entries were incorrect and had been made with a view to injure Mahura Kuar.
In companying to the finding of incorrectness of the entries in the khasra with intent to cause injury to Smt.
