A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court judgment in Raghubansh Lal v. The State of U.P. [1957 SCR 697] critically analyzes the ingredients necessary for conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case concerns the conduct of a Patwari, who allegedly made false entries in the land revenue record (Khasra) with intent to cause harm to a private individual, Smt. Mahura Kuar. The Court ruled that mere incorrectness of a record does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 218. Rather, it must be shown that the record was falsely created with intent to cause, or with the knowledge that it was likely to cause, loss or injury. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ judgments, finding no adequate evidence of such intent. This decision reinforces strict evidentiary thresholds for prosecuting public servants under Section 218 IPC, emphasizing the centrality of criminal intent and the insufficiency of mere procedural or factual errors to constitute a criminal offense.

Keywords: Section 218 IPC, Land Records, Criminal Intent, Patwari, Possession Dispute, Supreme Court 1957

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Raghubansh Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1955

iii) Judgment Date: 20 February 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: J. L. Kapur, Jagannadhadas, J. L. Imam, T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, K. Subba Rao, Govinda Menon

vi) Author: Justice J.L. Kapur

vii) Citation: [1957] SCR 697

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 16 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None reported

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Land Revenue Law, Evidence Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute arose from a contested entry made in the revenue record (Khasra) for the agricultural year 1358 Fasli. The appellant, Raghubansh Lal, serving as Patwari, entered Adit Pande’s name as the cultivator of two plots, although Smt. Mahura Kuar claimed lawful possession per judicial proceedings under Section 145 CrPC. She lodged a complaint asserting the entry was made with intent to injure her property rights, thus attracting Section 218 IPC. Section 218 criminalizes intentional falsification of public records by public servants to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause harm. Lower courts accepted her narrative. However, the apex court scrutinized whether the essential mens rea (criminal intent) existed. The judgment draws the legal contours of when incorrect administrative acts morph into criminal violations.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Smt. Mahura Kuar inherited lands after winning a legal suit in 1941 and took court-mediated possession in 1943. In 1950, she approached the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC, fearing dispossession by Adit Pande and others. The magistrate ordered attachment, and the plots were entrusted to a custodian, Shubh Karan. Proceedings concluded in her favour in December 1950. Meanwhile, the Patwari, Raghubansh Lal, made an entry in 1358 Fasli (corresponding to March 1951) naming Adit Pande as the person in possession. Smt. Mahura Kuar alleged that this entry undermined her rights and amounted to a malicious act, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 218 IPC. The entry’s timing, amid the pendency of revenue record finalization and shortly after her court-recognized possession, became pivotal in evaluating whether it was merely erroneous or malevolent.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether an incorrect entry made by a Patwari in the revenue record constitutes an offense under Section 218 IPC?

ii) Whether such entry was made with the intent or knowledge of likely causing loss or injury to Smt. Mahura Kuar?

iii) Whether lack of physical possession at the time justified the Patwari’s entry in favour of the rival claimant?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Appellant submitted that Raghubansh Lal acted in good faith. He stated he relied on field inspection and local reports, particularly from the village chowkidar, and not on judicial records. They argued that the possession, though ordered in favour of the complainant in December 1950, was actually given in April 1951 due to administrative delays. Hence, at the time of making the entry in March 1951, possession remained unclear or unchanged. The entry reflected what the appellant saw and knew, not any wilful falsification.

The defense also emphasized the absence of the sapurdar (custodian), Shubh Karan, whose testimony could have clarified the possession status. They further argued that no benefit could have accrued to Adit Pande from the entry, as Section 16 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act applied only to possession as recorded in 1356 Fasli, not 1358 Fasli. Hence, the entry was legally inconsequential. The defense concluded that the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent, a mandatory requirement under Section 218 IPC.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the appellant’s knowledge of court orders favoring Mahura Kuar proved malicious intent. They argued that the appellant ignored the official mandate and colluded with rival claimants. The entry, showing Adit Pande in possession, was not an innocent mistake but a deliberate act to confer tenancy benefits or confuse future claims. They pointed to corroborating statements from the complainant and her witnesses, affirming delivery of possession and the Patwari’s knowledge of the same. The High Court concurred, holding the entry was knowingly incorrect and capable of harming Smt. Mahura Kuar’s rights.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 218 IPC: “Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture” – This provision criminalizes falsification with intent to cause loss or injury.

ii) Section 145 CrPC: Governs preventive proceedings in land disputes likely to cause breach of peace and allows temporary possession orders pending title resolution.

iii) Section 16, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Protects recorded occupants of 1356 Fasli, granting them hereditary tenant rights. The year of record entry thus held legal importance.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that an incorrect entry alone does not satisfy the offense under Section 218 IPC. The prosecution must prove that the record was intentionally framed to cause or knowing that it was likely to cause injury. In the present case, no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence existed proving that the Patwari intended to injure the complainant. Since possession was ambiguous and judicial orders were recent and not communicated formally, the Patwari’s actions appeared, at worst, negligent, but not criminally motivated.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court observed that public servants’ errors must not be presumed criminal without clear evidence of intent. A mere mistake or negligence in record-making does not equate to a criminal act under Section 218 IPC. It warned against criminalizing administrative decisions in absence of malicious purpose.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Entry inaccuracies by public servants must be proven to be deliberate and malicious.

• Criminal intent is an indispensable requirement under Section 218 IPC.

• Absence of direct evidence weakens the case of criminal misconduct.

• Section 16 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act does not give retrospective tenancy rights based on entries post-1356 Fasli.

• Administrative decisions during periods of disputed possession demand cautious judicial interpretation.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Raghubansh Lal v. The State of U.P. strengthens the jurisprudence around misuse of criminal law against public servants for alleged record manipulation. The Court upheld the principle that criminal law must not penalize administrative errors absent compelling proof of intent. This case thus safeguards honest bureaucrats from penal liability due to ambiguities in possession or miscommunication, while still preserving accountability in instances of wilful misconduct. The judgment also provides important interpretive clarity regarding Section 218 IPC and its application to land records.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722
ii. Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, (1996) 1 SCC 130

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Section 218, Indian Penal Code
ii. Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code
iii. Section 16, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act