A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Raghubansh Lal v. The State of U.P., [1957 SCR 694], examined the scope and ingredients of Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes deliberate misconduct by a public servant responsible for official recordkeeping. The appellant, a Patwari, was convicted for recording possession in official land records incorrectly with alleged intent to cause wrongful loss to one party and undue gain to another. The key issue before the Court was whether the incorrect entry alone was enough to attract liability under Section 218 IPC or whether it was imperative for the prosecution to prove the existence of requisite criminal intent. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ conviction by holding that incorrectness of the record is not sufficient in isolation. There must be a deliberate intent to cause, or knowledge of the likelihood of causing, loss or injury. The Court found that since the entry in question related to the year 1358 Fasli, it had no bearing on the complainant’s rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, which concerned occupancy status in the year 1356 Fasli. Hence, the accused lacked the required mens rea to justify conviction under Section 218 IPC.

Keywords: Section 218 IPC, Khasra entries, criminal intent, Patwari misconduct, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1356 Fasli possession, framing incorrect record, public servant liability

B) CASE DETAILS

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

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

iii) Judgement Date: February 20, 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: J.L. Kapur J., delivering opinion on behalf of Jagannadhadas, Jafer Imam, Govinda Menon, and himself.

vi) Author: Justice J.L. Kapur

vii) Citation: 1957 SCR 694 | AIR 1957 SC 810

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898; Section 16 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951

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

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Land Revenue Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law (Article 136 Special Leave Jurisdiction)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from the alleged misconduct of a government Patwari in recording possession over agricultural plots in official land records (khasra) during a sensitive land dispute involving hereditary rights post-zamindari abolition. The land in question had earlier been the subject of civil litigation and also proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, resulting in an order declaring possession in favour of a widow, Smt. Mahura Kuar. The appellant, Raghubansh Lal, was accused of deliberately ignoring this and recording an adverse party as the occupant for the agricultural year 1358 Fasli. The entry, as per the prosecution, was calculated to subvert legal possession and confer undue benefits. The lower courts convicted him under Section 218 IPC, which penalizes public servants who frame incorrect records knowingly with intent to injure. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the mens rea requirement under Section 218 was adequately satisfied and whether the entry caused or was likely to cause injury in the legal sense.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant served as Patwari of village Arazi Mafi Pandai and was charged with intentionally entering incorrect possession records in the khasra for agricultural year 1358 Fasli regarding plots Nos. 170 and 74/1. These lands were previously litigated among the family members of Damodar Pande, and his daughter Smt. Mahura Kuar obtained a possession decree and execution thereof in 1943. In 1950, when a fresh dispute arose, she invoked Section 145 CrPC, and by December 18, 1950, she succeeded with an order affirming her possession and directing restoration thereof.

Despite this order, the appellant allegedly recorded Adit Pande, a rival claimant, as being in possession in 1358 Fasli, using the endorsement “qabiz badastur” (possession as before). According to the complainant, this was done maliciously, with knowledge of ongoing disputes, and with intent to cause her legal harm and unjust enrichment to Adit Pande. She filed a criminal complaint under Section 218 IPC in 1951, which led to his conviction at the Sessions Court, Ghazipur, and later upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court reversed this, stating lack of intention and nexus with harm.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether making an incorrect entry in the khasra register amounts to an offence under Section 218 of the IPC?

ii) Whether the accused had the requisite mens rea (intent or knowledge) to cause injury to the complainant?

iii) Whether the entry regarding the year 1358 Fasli had any legal consequence under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act or CrPC proceedings?

iv) Whether circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove criminal intent?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellant had no intention to harm the complainant. He acted based on field inspection and local information. He never received any judicial order under Section 145 CrPC. He only recorded the factual situation “as observed” on ground. The khasra entry pertained to the year 1358 Fasli, while possession was given to the complainant only in April 1951, which fell post the assessment year. Hence, entry could not harm her interests. Also, Section 16 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act applied only to the year 1356 Fasli, so the disputed entry held no legal consequence in respect of tenancy rights. The absence of the sapurdar Shubhkaran’s testimony further weakened the prosecution’s claim of actual possession.

They also contended that the requirement under Section 218 IPC is not merely an incorrect entry but intentional falsification to cause injury, which was not proved by direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence. They stressed that conviction based on assumption of motive cannot be sustained in criminal law.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The appellant knowingly made incorrect khasra entries despite being aware of the judicial decision in favour of the complainant. The khasra is an official record, and false entries can influence future legal rights. Testimonies of Mahura Kuar, Gauri Shankar, and Naresh clearly established the complainant’s lawful possession and the deliberate act of misrecording by the appellant. The entry benefited Adit Pande, against whom the court had restrained interference. Thus, even if possession was delivered in April 1951, the entries of “qabiz badastur” supported an adverse narrative, indicating prejudice and malice.

They argued that intent can be inferred from the conduct of the Patwari and the existing judicial determinations. Further, a public servant must adhere to strict neutrality, and breach of this principle must be punished under criminal law to ensure public trust.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 218, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – “Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture”. [Indian Kanoon link]

ii) Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Dispute as to possession of immovable property [Indian Kanoon link]

iii) Section 16, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 – Deeming provision for hereditary tenancy based on possession in 1356 Fasli. [Indian Kanoon link]

iv) Rule 60 of U.P. Land Records Manual – Responsibility of Patwari to record accurate khasra entries based on field inspection

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court held that mere incorrectness of an entry does not establish a criminal offence under Section 218 IPC. It must be proved that the public servant intended to cause injury or knew that the act was likely to cause injury to someone. Here, the disputed entry for 1358 Fasli had no practical legal effect. The relevant year for conferral of rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act was 1356 Fasli, and Section 145 proceedings were already concluded. The Patwari’s entry thus could not have altered legal status or caused harm in the legal sense. Mens rea was absent. Therefore, the conviction could not stand.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that in criminal law, intention cannot be presumed solely from outcome. Courts must rely on clear proof, either direct or inferable, that the act was committed with conscious awareness of resulting harm. Moreover, public records must be accurate, but honest mistakes or errors without malice are not criminalized.

c. GUIDELINES 

• To convict under Section 218 IPC, courts must find:

  1. The accused knowingly framed an incorrect record.

  2. There was intent to cause injury or knowledge of the likelihood thereof.

  3. The entry must bear legal consequence or potential harm.

• Conviction cannot rest solely on incorrectness.

• Absence of primary witnesses weakens prosecution significantly.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment stands as a landmark clarification on the interpretation of Section 218 IPC, distinguishing between administrative misconduct and criminal liability. It underscores the principle that mens rea is fundamental to criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, through rigorous analysis, avoided criminalising conduct not backed by proven criminal intent, reaffirming the need for restraint in punishing public officials without clear culpability. This decision also maintains the sanctity of judicial findings and their non-retrospective application in administrative acts like land recording.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Raghubansh Lal v. The State of U.P., 1957 SCR 694

b. Important Statutes Referred

[2] Section 218, Indian Penal Code, 1860

[3] Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

[4] Section 16, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951

[5] Rule 60, U.P. Land Records Manual