1. Public servant convicted under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, for manipulating official police records to save another person from potential legal punishment. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.R.Mudholkar, K.Subba Rao, Syed Jafar Imam, JJ.
Maulud Ah Mad
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 97 of 1961
Date of Decision : 11/13/62
Advocates Appeared: Hussain Saukat : Lal C.P. : Mathur G.C. : Sinha S.P.
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.P.SINHA, Saukat Hussain
C.P.LAL, G.C.MATHUR, S.P.SINHA, Saukat Hussain
Conviction under Section 218 IPC for falsifying records to save a person from legal punishment is not negated by the subsequent acquittal of that person. Furthermore, the limitation period under Section 42 of the Police Act applies only to offenses under the Police Act, not the IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 218 - Public servant framing incorrect record with intent to save person from legal punishment - The offense under this section is centered on the intent to save a person from legal punishment; the subsequent acquittal of the person intended to be saved does not negate the offense or the conviction of the public servant who manipulated the records. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Police Act, 1861 - Sections 36 and 42 - Limitation for prosecution - The three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 42 applies only to prosecutions for acts done under the provisions of the Police Act or under general police powers; it does not extend to prosecutions for offenses committed under other Acts, such as the Indian Penal Code, especially in light of Section 36. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
A public servant, while serving as a police officer, made false entries in the general diary and manipulated official records to create a false alibi for another individual who was suspected of causing the death of two persons. The public servant was convicted under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for framing incorrect records to save the other person from legal punishment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the public servant intentionally falsified the official record to save another person from legal punishment. The fact that the beneficiary of the false entry was subsequently acquitted of the charges does not exonerate the public servant. Additionally, the prosecution was not barred by the limitation period mentioned in the Police Act.
Issues: (1) Whether the acquittal of the person whom the public servant intended to save from legal punishment results in the failure of the charge under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) Whether the prosecution for an offense under the Indian Penal Code is barred by the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 42 of the Police Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essence of Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code is the intent to save a person from legal punishment; therefore, the actual guilt or subsequent acquittal of the beneficiary is irrelevant to the public servant's liability. Regarding limitation, Section 42 of the Police Act applies only to offenses under the Police Act itself, and Section 36 of the same Act ensures that such provisions do not preclude prosecution under any other Act for an offense punishable under that Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquittal of the beneficiary negates the offence under Section 218, IPC, and whether prosecution is barred by limitation under Section 42, Police Act. (Para 2 )
3. Falsifying records to save a person from potential punishment remains an offence regardless of the beneficiary's subsequent acquittal; Section 42, Police Act applies only to offences under that Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. Conviction under Section 218, IPC is independent of the beneficiary's acquittal; limitation periods for Police Act offences do not apply to prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code. (Para 6 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed and conviction under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, upheld. (Para 12 )
6. Does the acquittal of the person whom a public servant intended to save from legal punishment exonerate the public servant under Section 218, IPC?
No. The offence under Section 218, IPC is committed when a public servant frames an incorrect record with the intent to save someone from legal punishment. The subsequent acquittal of that person does not negate the offence or the intent to save them from potential prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Does the three-month limitation period for prosecutions under Section 42 of the Police Act apply to offences committed under the Indian Penal Code?
No. Section 42 applies only to prosecutions for acts done under the provisions of the Police Act or general police powers. Section 36 of the Police Act clarifies that such provisions do not preclude a person from being prosecuted for an offence under any other Act, such as the IPC. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What is the court's view on the sentencing of police officers who manipulate official records?
The court held that manipulating official records, such as the police diary, undermines honest criminal investigations. Consequently, such offences should receive deterrent punishment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. (Para 11 )
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 shortly after that four gu
