quashed-complaint-alleging wrongful mutation of revenue records by Thasildar etc.,-The accused No.2 and the Tehsildar, accused No.3 mechanically acted the sanctioned the mutation No.1600 on 12.06.95, which they had the knowledge to believe that the mutation No.1600 was incorrect to the extent of non incollusion of the name of Satish Kumar or the children of Satish Kumar, as laid down in section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act….” -apex court held that Be that as it may, the allegation against the appellant is only that he acted mechanically. There is no allegation of mens rea of committing a crime. Therefore, no criminal offence is made out and we are of the view that it would not in the interest of justice to continue with the criminal complaint against the appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s).423 OF 2011
JYOTI RAM APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRITO RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
A complaint was filed by Preeto Devi widow of Satish
Kumar alleging that one mutation no.1600 of 27.05.1995
was sanctioned on 12.06.1995 whereby the property of her
mother-in-law Bharanwa Bai was mutated in the names of
Jagdish Kumar, Man Singh, Ram Pal, sons of Bharanwa Bai,
and Santosh Kumari daughter of Bharanwa Bai. The
allegation was that, in fact, the husband of the
complainant, Satish Kumar was the predeceased son of
Bharanwa Bai and all this was done to deprive the
complainant of the property which should have fallen to
her share.
We are not going into the other aspects of the
matter but the allegation qua the appellant, who was the
kanoongo (girdwar) of the area is as follows:
“That being dishonest and having property, to
conceal dishonestly and to grab fraudulently
the property of Smt. Bharawan Bai as a whole
and they were not ready to sequester any part
of the property in favour of the complainant’s
Children, therefore, all the accused nos.1 to
7 fell into a conspiracy knowingly and
1

willfully and the accused No.1 registered the
mutation No.1600 on 27.05.1995 inspite of the
knowlege, which he had from the record that
except the accused No.4 to 7, there was one
Satish Kumar son of Bharawan Bai and likewise,
the girdwar. The accused No.2 and the
Tehsildar, accused No.3 mechanically acted the
sanctioned the mutation No.1600 on 12.06.95,
which they had the knowledge to believe that
the mutation No.1600 was incorrect to the
extent of non incollusion of the name of
Satish Kumar or the children of Satish Kumar,
as laid down in section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act….”
It is not disputed that this mutation was later
rectified and the names of legal representatives of
Satish Kumar were entered in the revenue record.
Be that as it may, the allegation against the
appellant is only that he acted mechanically. There is no
allegation of mens rea of committing a crime. Therefore,
no criminal offence is made out and we are of the view
that it would not in the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal complaint against the appellant. The
same is, accordingly, quashed as far as appellant before
us is concerned. The order of the High Court is set
aside.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
……………….J.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
……………….J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi
September 24, 2019
2

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).423/2011
JYOTI RAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRITO Respondent(s)
Date : 24-09-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Appellant(s)
Mr. B.S. Bedi, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Ms. Simar Bedi, Adv.
Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR

For Respondent(s)

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)
3