Sita Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.

This petition has been filed against the order dated 30.4.1998, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1995. The facts as they appear from the record are that a criminal complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner Sita Ram, Lekhpal, and the co-accused Gore Lal stating that the said Lekhpal, Sita Ram, in connivance with the other accused had recorded false entries in the revenue records regarding plots No. 262 and 261. The Magistrate summoned the accused in the said case and recorded evidence u/s 244, Cr. P.C. The Magistrate after having considered the material at that stage discharged the accused persons, vide order dated 7.12.1994, which was challenged in the aforesaid Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1995. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the entire aspect of the matter and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, was of the view that the order of the Magistrate dated 7.4.1994, discharging the accused persons u/s 245, Cr. P.C. was not warranted under the circumstances and allowed the revision-petition. He directed that the parties should be heard and if the ingredients of the alleged offence are not found present in the evidence as recorded u/s 244, Cr. P.C., only then the Magistrate would be justified to pass an order discharging the accused persons. He further observed that the Magistrate concerned at that particular stage of the case was not required to go into the nicety of the evidence for discharging the accused. Accordingly directions were given to Magistrate to pass the order in accordance with law.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petition has been preferred by the Lekhpal accused, Sita Ram.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the wrongful entries made in the revenue records in respect of plot Nos. 261 and 262 may be an instance of mistake and as such there could not be presumption of commission of an offence punishable u/s 218, I.P.C.

It is not disputed that the wrongful entries had been made in the revenue records while the Petitioner, Sita Ram, was posted as Lekhpal in the said village. Whether these incorrect entries are made by way of mistake, is a fact, of which the burden of proof lies only upon the accused. The entries are wrongful and they will reflect to a criminal act of the Petitioner-accused unless they are shown to have been done by mistake. This stage will come only after the trial of the accused is completed and the defence evidence has been led in the case and not before that. If the accused is found to have incorporated the entry by mistake, then at the stage while delivering the judgment, he would be acquitted. There is absolutely no occasion to discharge him at the stage of proceedings u/s 245, Cr. P.C.

In the aforesaid view of the matter I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity as to warrant interference by this Court in a petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C.

The petition, having no force, is hereby dismissed.

Stay order, if any, stands vacated.