K.SUBBA RAO, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal by Special leave against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, confirming that of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri, convicting the appellant under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case may be briefly stated :

"SOME Railway officers and others, including one Chauhan, Railway Guard, went on two trollies towards Bhitra for a shoot. Chauhan had with him a double barrelled gun of twelve bore bearing No. 23727. On either side of the Railway line there were reserve forests of the State. Some of the group got down from the trollies, flashed a search-light and fired their guns. Two persons were shot dead. Chauhan in order to create evidence in his favour got a report entered by the appellant, a Police Head- constable, in the General diary of the Police Station purporting to have been taken on December 13, 1966, at 6.45 P.M. to the effect that Ghauhan had deposited the said gun in the Police Station. Many other manipulations were made by the appellant in the Police record to bring it in conformity with the said false entry. Several persons, including Chauhan and the appellant were prosecuted under ss. 304-A, 201/109, 120-B and 218/109 of the Indian Penal Code, as well under s. 26 of the Indian Forest Act, and they were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri. The appellant was also charged under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were acquitted except the appellant who was convicted under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by him to the High Court was dismissed. Hence this present appeal."

(2) THE learned counsel for the appellant raised two questions before us. The first was that as Chauhan was acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged, the charge against the appellant under s. 218, Indian Penal Code, should fall with it and the second that the prosecution against the appellant having been launched three months after the entry is alleged to have been made by him in the Police diary was barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Police Act.

(3) SECTION 218 of the Indian Penal Code reads :

"WHOEVER, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, x x x x with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save x x ,x x x shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both."

(4) THE crux of the section 89 far as it is relevant to the present inquiry is that the public servant should have acted in the manner contemplated by this section with an intent thereby to save or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment.

(5) THE argument of the learned counsel under the first head hinges upon the alleged inconsistency and conflict between the acquittal of Chauhan and the conviction of the appellant. Chauhan had been charged along with the appellant for offences under ss. 304-A, 120-B, 201/109 and 218/109-of the Indian Penal Code and s. 26 of the Indian Forest Act. He was acquitted. Omitting for the time being s. 218/109 Indian Penal Code, let us see on what grounds he was so acquitted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the following facts had been established :

(1) That there were three guns with the party, including Chauhans gun; (2) That between miles 8 and 9 after the trollies were stopped and were placed by the side of the track, Ramdeo trolly man and Lala went away and short