This article is written by Ishan Arun Mudbidri, pursuing B.A.LLB from Marathwada Mitra Mandal’s Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune. This article talks about the punishment given for framing or preparing an incorrect record under the Indian Penal Code.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Public servants are supposed to do their duty with utmost honesty and sincerity. Before joining public service, they take the oath of abiding by the rules and dispensing their duty in an unbiased manner. But sometimes they come under political pressure or pressure from some underworld elements. Also sometimes, they are even threatened with loss of life or harm to their families. Sometimes, they may even be tempted with bribes. So, they tend to get pressured and give false reports. There should be some provision for the protection of these public servants if they refuse to toe the line of the offenders (mafias) so that they can give a fair and just report without fear.
Overview of Section 218 of IPC
Chapter 11 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, deals with offenses related to false evidence and opposing public justice. These offenses are divided into two categories:
- Offenses relating to false evidence (Section 191- Section 200).
- Offenses against public justice (Section 201- Section 229A).
Offences relating to public servants are very important. These offences make sure that the public servants do not misuse their powers, commit crimes and then get away with it. Chapter 9 of the Indian Penal Code deals with such offences committed by public servants but, Section 166, Section 167, and Section 218 of the Code deal with the conduct of the public servants wherein, they have to obey the law while preparing documents, records, filing of FIRs and other writings.
In this context, Section 218 of the Code is of utmost importance. According to this Section, any public servant, who was tasked to prepare a record or any other document prepares it erroneously, intending to cause loss or injury, or know it to cause loss or injury to any person, or trying to save a person from getting punished, or property from forfeiture will be punished under this Section. Punishment under this offence will amount to three years of imprisonment or a fine, or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable.
This Section requires that the public servant must commit this offence during his time as a public servant. Further, there must be an intention on the part of the public servant to cause loss or injury to the other. Lastly, there must be an intention to save another person from getting punished or any property from forfeiture.
For example,
- Preparing a fake document by a customs official for allowing the smuggling of gold because he was a part of the gang of smugglers, will amount to an offence under this Section.
- A police officer preparing to file a false FIR for his personal gains will amount to an offence under this Section.
- A village officer for his personal gains prepares a false record of two men who were illegally occupying a certain piece of land. Here the village officer will be held liable under Section 218 of IPC.
Difference between Sections 167, 193, and 218 of IPC.
These three Sections look similar and it is also believed that Section 218 is the same as Section 193, just less elaborate. So what is the difference between all these three offences? Firstly, the assumption that Section 218 is a minor form of Section 193 is wrong. Both these offences are distinct. Section 193 deals with giving and fabricating false evidence which must be done to use it at any stage of a judicial proceeding. Section 218 deals with preparing an incorrect record or other writing by a public servant to cause loss or injury to another person or save a person from punishment. Section 218 nowhere involves a judicial proceeding. Further, any person’s fabrication of false evidence can be done whereas, preparing an incorrect record must be done by a public servant.
The distinction between Section 167 and Section 193, was resolved in the case of A.J Joseph v State of Kerala (1934). The Court, in this case, held that Section 167 relates to the incorrect preparation of public record whereas, Section 193 is applied when the record forms a part of the judicial proceeding.
Further, all three offences are non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.
The case of Maulad Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh
This case, Maulad Ahmed v State of Uttar Pradesh(1962) was one of the first instances where Section 218 of the code was examined in depth by the Supreme Court.
Background of the case
Chauhan, the main accused in this case, was headed to Bhitra for a shoot, accompanied by some railway officers. Chauhan was carrying a gun. Some people got down from the train and fired their guns towards the forests. In this process, two persons were shot dead. Chauhan deposited the gun in the police station and took help from the petitioner, a head constable, to prepare a piece of false evidence and make other false entries in his favor in the diary of the police station. All the people involved in this incident including Chauhan and the petitioner were charged under Section 304A, Section 201, Section 109, Section 218, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. They were also charged under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act(1927). All the mentioned accused were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court except for the petitioner who was prosecuted under Section 218 of the code. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Appeal against the judgment. However, this appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the case went to the Supreme Court.
Contention of parties
The counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioner had just two questions:
- The first question was that, if the main offender Chauhan and the other persons involved were acquitted then, the petitioner should also be acquitted under the same circumstances.
- The second question was that the prosecution against the appellant was launched three months after the appellant made the false entry in the police station diary hence, this prosecution is not applicable under Section 42 of the Police Act(1861).
Findings of the Court
- The Court examined the facts of the case and concluded that there was no direct evidence that Chauhan and the other accused killed the two persons. Irrespective of the fact whether Chauhan was guilty or not, there was enough evidence that the petitioner had made entries in the diary intending to save Chauhan and others from legal punishment.
- Further, the Court found that the petitioner intentionally prepared a false record to save Chauhan due to which Chauhan’s signature was not found on 13th December 1956 when the gun was deposited and also on 18th December 1956 when the gun was returned. Hence there wasn’t enough evidence to prove whether Chauhan had abetted the petitioner to make a false record and false entries in the diary. The acquittal of Chauhan has no connection with the conviction of the petitioner.
- The second issue was whether the conviction falls under section 42 of the Police Act. Section 42 of the Police Act states that any actions that were taken against a person, which are lawfully done under the provisions of this Act, or under the police powers, shall be taken within three months after the act has been committed. The period of three months for prosecutions is only applicable to the person for something done under the provisions of this act and not any other act. According to Section 36 of the Police Act, nothing in this act shall prevent a person from being prosecuted for any other Regulation or Act, or a much higher punishment or penalty. Hence, both these sections make it clear that a police officer cannot be stopped from getting prosecuted under any other regulation or act. The current prosecution of the Police officer is for an offence committed under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for which the punishment is much higher. Thus Section 36 and Section 42 of the Police Act, 1861 cannot be applied to this prosecution.
- The Court dismissed the appeal by concluding that, any police officer who manipulates the police records such as diary, will mean the end of honest criminal investigation in the country and will be liable to strict punishment for the offence.
Other instances
Section 218 of the Code was used in other judgments which are as follows:
Sardul Singh Petitioner v. State of Punjab
In Sardul Singh Petitioner v State of Punjab (2013), the petitioner who worked as a local authority for maintaining records and collecting taxes, also known as a patwari, was accused of manipulating a forged will. He was summoned under Section 218 IPC. The petitioner alleged that he was falsely implicated. The petitioner also pleaded that the entries made in the will were according to the documents provided. The beneficiary of the will was mentioned in column No.2. The counsel for the respondent argued saying the fact that the beneficiaries were mentioned in column No. 2, does not mean that the allegations against the petitioner can be quashed. The counsel also submitted evidence under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court finally quashed the plea of the petitioner
S. Ravi Kumar v. Selvaraj
In S Ravi Kumar v Selvaraj (2016), the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 218 of IPC against the respondent alleging that he conducted a false investigation when he was a police inspector and filed a false report in a case filed by his client to save the accused. The Court dismissed the complaint. It further stated that an advocate must explain on what basis the complaint was filed on behalf of his client under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
Dipti Bharadwaj v. State of Haryana
In Dipti Bharadwaj v State of Haryana (2012) the appellant was charged under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for, preparing the MLR (medical-legal report) to help the accused persons in a rape case of two minor girls. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses wherein, one of the witnesses saw the elder brother of one of the accused talking to the appellant but had not heard what they talked about. The accused persons were already charged under Section 376 of the IPC. However, the fact that the witness had seen the appellant with the elder brother of the accused had not been recorded while taking her statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C in 1992 hence, there was a delay in the judgment. The Court further observed that the witness himself had not heard what the elder brother of the accused and the appellant were talking about. Hence, there is no circumstantial evidence to meet the requirements of Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, as it is necessary that the appellant had acted intending to save the accused which is an important ingredient of Section 218. Hence, the Court sustained the order of remand.
Conclusion
Hence as seen above, the intention is the essence of any offence. In the context also, the public servant’s intention to help the accused in preparing a false report or framing an incorrect record decides the outcome of the case. Section 218 of the IPC stands out as one of the most important sections when it comes to punishing public servants for the offences committed by them.
References
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
