- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 9-9-92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Criminal Appel No. 31/90 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 13-11-90 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in criminal Case No. 99/88 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for offence under Section 197, I.P.C. and sentenced him to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to further undergo 2 months' S.I.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as under : i) That Mst. Chhoti widow of late Shri Khiraj (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nohar on 28-9-85 against the accused petitioner for offence under Section 197, I.P.C. inter alia stating that there was an agricultural land in village Bachhusar measuring 53 bighas and 3 biswas in which the complainant had a share. ii) That further case of the complainant is that the accused petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mandarpura in which village Bachhusar fell. iii) It was further stated by the complainant in the complaint that Mst. Jyana was co-sharer in the above agricultural land and after her death in order to favour other co-sharers, namely Kundan Ram, Panna Lal, Hushyari Lal and Ram Prasad, the accused petitioner issued a certificate on 7-1-83 (Ex. P/1) in the capacity as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Mandarpura in which it was stated that Mst. Jyana widow of Arjan Ram and present complainant had died and after their death, their legal heirs were Kundan Ram, Panna Lal, Hushyari Lal and Ram Prasad. iv) Further case of the complainant is that on the basis of the certificate (Ex. P/1) dated 7-1-83, the concerned Patwari entered the death of the complainant in the Revenue Record and later on, the Patwari was informed that infact the complainant had not died and the entry was corrected accordingly and thus, in case this mistake would not have been rectified by the Patwari concerned, the whole property would have gone in the share of Kundan Ram, Panna Lal, Hushyari Lal and Ram Prasad. Hence, the accused petitioner be punished for offence under Section 197, I.P.C. v) That on the basis of that complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the learned Judicial Magistrate and after preliminary examination, vide order dated 5-10-85, cognizance for offence under Section 197, I.P.C. was taken against the accused petitioner. vi) That thereafter pre-charge evidence was recorded by the learned Magistrate and through order dated 31-7-87, a charge for offence under Section 197, I.P.C. was framed against the accused petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) That at the trial, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses in support of its case. The accused petitioner in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied to have committed any offence, but admitted issuance of certificate (Ex. P/1) dated 7-1-83 and examined 3 witnesses in defence.;