1. This is a reference made to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge, Sholapur to quash a conviction of the two accused persons who had been convicted of an offence under S. 182 when read with S. 109 if necessary.
2. The prosecution case was that the Mamlat-dar of Mohol received an application complaining that one Soudagar who was a tenant of land belonging to accused No. 2 had received tagai loan through the influence of Talati and Sub-Inspector and the Talati had not given an extract from the Record of Rights to the applicant even though he had gone to the Talati 1 or 8 times.
This application was actually made by accused No. 2 and was written by accused No. 1. It was false inasmuch as Saudagar did not get the tagai because of the influence of the Talati or the Sub-Inspector and also because it was not true that accused No. 2 did not get extracts of the Record of Rights even though he had made 7 or 8 trips to the Talati for it.
3. The defence of accused No. 2 was that he had not made the application. It did not. bear his signature or thumb impression and any body might have made it. The principal defence for accused No. 1 was that he was merely the writer of the application.
4. The learned Magistrate even so held that the application was made by accused No. 2 because of a statement of accused No. 2 which had been recorded by the Mamlatdar in which accused No. 2 has referred to an application made by him.
4a. The learned Sessions Judge has made this reference to this Court for quashing the conviction of the two accused because of the view of the learned Sessions Judge that it has not been shown that accused No. 2 had made the application, and so far as accused No. 1 is concerned he was merely the writer.
5. Now, the statement of the Mamlatdar merely shows that accused No. 2 admitted that he had made an application to the Mamlatdar because he had come to form the view that he did not get extracts from the Record of Rights because Soudagar was friendly with the Talati. That would not show as the learned Sessions Judge points out that the application which the prosecution contended was false was the application made by accused No. 2. So far as accused No. 1 is concerned it is difficult to understand how he was guilty even if the application was made actually by accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 was only the writer of the application and he had no reason for supposing that the allegations in it were not true.
6. I therefore accept the reference, sst asidethe conviction and the sentences of the twoaccused persons. if the fine had been paid thenit should be refunded to them.Reference accepted.