- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Case is taken up in the revised list. None appears for the revisionist to argue the revision.
(2.) HEARD learned A. G. A. Perused memo of revision and material on record. The revisionist was Lekhpal of vil lage Asawar, Pargana Agauta, district Bulandshahr and was under obligation to correctly maintain the revenue records. The prosecution case is that he made false entries in Khata No. 73 belonging to com plainant Bhoopal Singh whereby he reduced the area of land of the com plainant in the said Khata by 5 biswas land and added the same in plot No. 7 belong ing to Gyan Singh. The defence of the revisionist was that he had made correc tions in the revenue records in pursuance to the orders of the higher authorities. Courts below did not accept this plea of the revisionist and consequently con victed and sentenced him under Section 218, I. P. C. He was released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, each for Rs. 3,000/. Judgments and orders of the courts below are challenged mainly on the ground that mistake on the part of the revisionist was bonafide and in compliance of the orders of the higher authorities and was not an intentional act.
(3.) OFFENCE under Section 218, I. P. C. is defined in the I. P. C. which reads as fol-lows:- "218 Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.- Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the prepara tion of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprison ment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. " From bare reading of Section 218, I. P. C. it would appear that false prepara tion of records must have been done knowingly with intention to cause or with the knowledge that by such act he was likely to cause loss or injury to the public or to any person. What appears from the reading of the judgment of the learned lower court is that the revisionist com plied with the order of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bulandshahr without informing the authorities about the mistake in the order of the Assistant Collector. The learned appellate authority has observed in its judgment and order that 5 biswas land was to be reduced from plot No. 3/1 which belonged to Gyan Singh and not from plot No. 3/2 which belonged to the complainant. Since there was an order of the Assistant Collector which was to be complied with by the revisionist, it cannot be said that he intentionally prepared false record with the intention of causing injury to the complainant. Courts below, in my view, therefore, committed no error in convicting the revisionist.;