- (1.) The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 471 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed on him is of two years and fine and one year and fine respectively for the above offences. He filed appeal, which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court and hence present revision application has been filed by him.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was Patwari, Halqa Barod. He was tried for the offences under Sections 471, 218 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for committing forgery and using the forged documents as genuine one by erasing the khasra girdawari register of the year 1972-73 and 1976-77 in the column of Rectangle No. 2, Killa Nos. 22 , 23, 24 and 25 and rapat No. 119 of roznamcha for the year 1972-73 and also stiching one more paper in the jamabandhi for the year 1976-77 in order to cause loss or injury to Ms. Hardavi, resident of village Tito Kheri in favour of the accused Chander Singh and Satbir Singh.
(3.) After going through the contention raised in the memo of revision and the evidence I find that there is nothing wrong so far as the appreciation of evidence is concerned. However, there is one more ground taken and that is regarding sanction to prosecute as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not taken. The petitioner has committed this offence while discharging his official duties. The lower appellate Court has observed as under :- "The plea is too fallacious to be considered. It may perhaps be said that preparation of incorrect record may be done by the public servant in the discharge of his ordinary duties. However, by no stretch of interpretation, it could be argued that preparation of forged record would be within the domain of the functions of the public servant. In this case, the appellant's own plea is that addition of khasra numbers in Ex.PA had come to his notice and that he brought that fact to the notice of Shri Udey Singh, who orally directed him to ignore it and incorporate that fact in the jamabandhi, if a public servant knowingly acts on the basis of forged entries even the fact that his superior had directed him to do so (though it is not proved in the instant case) would not absolve him from the allegation that he acted on the basis of forged record. Such an act on the part of a public servant would not entitled him to the protection of the provisions of sanction in the Cr.P.C.;