A public servant's act of preparing an incorrect record, even if done incorrectly or wrongly, falls within the scope of their official duty and requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1), Criminal Procedure Code.

1. This is recommendation under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code made by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda in a revision petition filed by Madan Lal Lamba, Sub-Divisional Officer against Inderjit Mehta, contractor from the judgement dated February 6, 1967 given by Shri Dina Nath, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhatinda holding that sanction for prosecution of Madan Lal Lamba by a complaint filed by Inderjit Mehta for offence under Section 218, Indian Penal Code was not necessary.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Inderjit Mehta entered into a contract on April 25, 1964 for supply of stone ballast to the Public Works Department of the Punjab Government for construction of Lassara Nala and Bhatinda-Dabwali Road.

3. Inderjit Mehta supplied 1400 cubic feet of stone ballast to Madan Lal Lamba in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer in charge of the contract. The Sub-Divisional Officer checked the material on June 3, 1964. He made an entry at page 11 in the Officers Note Book No. 35. The running bill of the amount thus due was drawn up on February 23, 1965. The payment of the amount due is said to have been postponed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on one pretext or the other. On August 31, 1965, the contractor came to know that the Sub-Divisional Officer had replaced page 11 of the Officers Note Book by inserting in that book another leaf bearing that page number. The page replaced did not contain the entry pertaining to the supply of 1400 cubic feet of stone ballast.

4. The contractor finding that the Sub-Divisional Officer had prepared the record in a manner knowing it to be incorrect with intent to cause loss to him and also had fabricated the record, filed on July 16, 1966 a complaint under Sections 218, 465 and 467, Indian Penal Code against the Sub-Divisional Officer. The trial Court summoned the accused only for offence under Section 218, Indian Penal Code. The accused made an application to the Court on December 12, 1966 contending that under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no sanction having been obtained for his prosecution, he cannot be proceeded against under Section 218, Indian Penal Code.

5. It is admitted on behalf of the parties that the petitioner-accused is a public servant. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he having prepared incorrect record pertaining to the payment of price of the stone ballast supplied by the respondent while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, the Court could not take cognizance of offence under Section 218, Indian Penal Code unless the previous sanction of the State Government is forthcoming and no sanction having been obtained, the complaint deserves dismissal.

6. Section 218, Indian Penal Code, under which the petitioner has been summoned, runs as follows :-

"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, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or 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, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

7. It is admitted by both the parties that the petitioner in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer was charged with the preparation of the record or writing of the Officers Note Book containing page 11. It is also conceded that whether it is the original leaf bearing page 11 or the one by which it has been substituted, both are written in the handwriting, of the petitioner and were prepared by him. Thus, the preparation of page 11 as replaced with the entry