# Cajtnt!ro NMoin Si,, git v. Jolr.ri Mal Pralo/od Rai - **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 38 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961-02-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1961 - **Bench:** S. J. Imam, K. SuBnA RAO, J. R. MuDHOLKAR - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cajtnt-ro-nmoin-si-git-v-jolr-ri-mal-pralo-od-rai-2778 - **Pages:** 9 ## Headnote Criminal Trial-Framing incorrect record-Head Conslablemalcing false entry to save ""other ierson-Arquittal of !he other person-Conviction of Head Constable, if smtainableLimitation-Prosec,.tion after 3 months of ~ffence-lj' barred-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), s 218l'olice Act, 1861 (V of 1861), '"· 36, 42. C and some other persons \Vent on a shoot with gt111s where two persons were shot dead. In ordrr to create evidence in his favour C got a faJ.e report entered by the appellant, a Head constable, in the General Diary purporting to have been made on the previous day to the effect that C had deposited his gun. C and the appellant and the others were tried for various offences including offences under ss. 304~.1\ and 218/!09 Indian Penal Code. All the accussed were acquittrd but the appellant was convicted under s, 218. The appellant contended (i) that after the acquittal of C, his conviction under s. 218 could not be sustained and (ii) that the prosecution having been launched n1ore than three months after the entry was 1narle w:i,s h&rred by limit.1tion t111def s. 42 Pol ice Act. ' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 39 Bdd, that the appellant was rightly convicted. Whether C . was guilty or not, at the time the. entry was made there was every likelihood of a being prosecuted, for causinl( the death of two pcr«>nS. The acuittal of a did not affect the finding that the false entry was made with tho intention to save or knowing it to be likely to save a frora legal punishment. The acquittal of C under 1. 218/109 did not exonerate the appellant as it had been found that he had made the false entry with a view to save a. Held, further, that the prosecution was not barred by s. 42 of the Police Act. Sections 36 and 42 read . together showed thats. 42 was applicable only to prosecutions for offencOI under the Police Act and not to prosecution• under the Penal Code or other Acts. ## Text 1962 Cajtnt!ro NMoin Si,, git v. Jolr.ri Mal Pralo/od Rai Shah, J. 1962 Jitovtmlm, J!J. 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. again>t the firm was by virtue of sub-rule (l)cl. (b) of rule 50 0. 21, liable to be executed against Singh. The High Court was thorefore, in our judgment right in directing eKecution of the decree of the City Civil Court, Bombay, against Singh. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. A pper1l dism isserl. MAULUD AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (S. J. IMAM, K. SuBnA RAO and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Framing incorrect record-Head Conslablemalcing false entry to save ""other ierson-Arquittal of !he other person-Conviction of Head Constable, if smtainableLimitation-Prosec,.tion after 3 months of ~ffence-lj' barred-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), s 218l'olice Act, 1861 (V of 1861), '"· 36, 42. C and some other persons \Vent on a shoot with gt111s where two persons were shot dead. In ordrr to create evidence in his favour C got a faJ.e report entered by the appellant, a Head constable, in the General Diary purporting to have been made on the previous day to the effect that C had deposited his gun. C and the appellant and the others were tried for various offences including offences under ss. 304~.1\ and 218/!09 Indian Penal Code. All the accussed were acquittrd but the appellant was convicted under s, 218. The appellant contended (i) that after the acquittal of C, his conviction under s. 218 could not be sustained and (ii) that the prosecution having been launched n1ore than three months after the entry was 1narle w:i,s h&rred by limit.1tion t111def s. 42 Pol ice Act. ' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 39 Bdd, that the appellant was rightly convicted. Whether C . was guilty or not, at the time the. entry was made there was every likelihood of a being prosecuted, for causinl( the death of two pcr«>nS. The acuittal of a did not affect the finding that the false entry was made with tho intention to save or knowing it to be likely to save a frora legal punishment. The acquittal of C under 1. 218/109 did not exonerate the appellant as it had been found that he had made the false entry with a view to save a. Held, further, that the prosecution was not barred by s. 42 of the Police Act. Sections 36 and 42 read . together showed thats. 42 was applicable only to prosecutions for offencOI under the Police Act and not to prosecution• under the Penal Code or other Acts. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datP.d February 1, 1961, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 1960. S. P. 8inha and Saukat Huasain, for the appellant. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent. 196:?, November 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SuBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by Special leave against the judgment and order of 1 he Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bertch, confirming th:i.t of the Addi1ion:i.l 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 officer.i and others, including one Chauhan, Railway Guard, went on two trollies ('1wards Bhitra for a "shoot. Chauhan had with him a 1961 M•ul•' Abm"4 •• SMa •JU. 1'. 1161 Mal•I Ah.,.d •• SMt .. /U. P. Subk &lo, J. 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 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 Headconstable; in the General diary of the Police Station purporting to have been taken on December 13, 1956, at 6.45 P.M. to the effect that Chauhan 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 s.q, 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 dismisse.i. Hence this present appeal. 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 deen made by him in the Police diary was barred by limitation under s. 42 of the Police Act. Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code reads :- "Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the prepa · ~tion of any record or other writing frames ' •" 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 41 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." The crux of the section so 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 li~ely that he will thereby save any person from legal punishment. 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 Chauhan's 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 gun-shots were heard and shortly after that Lala returned alone and then all the.members of the party excepting Ramdeo returned to Mailani by the Cane Special. 1952 Ma•lud Ahmad v. Stal• of U. P. Subha Rao, J. 1962 --· Mau/ud Ahmad v. St•I• of U. P. Suhba Rao, J. 42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. ( 3) That at the time when the four gun-shots were heard, Chauhan and Gupta were standing just near the track with their guns in their hands and, Dilawar, Amin and Hira also remained standing by the side of the track. (4) The medical evidence does not say about the duration of th~ gun shot injuries of Ramdeo and Chhotev but from the above noted discussion of the evidence it would appear that Ramdeo and Chhotey were likely to have rr-ceived gun·shot injuries between 7-20 to 7-40 P.M. in the night between December, 14 and 15, 1956. From the foregoing facts found the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no direct or substantial evidence of any kind connecting any of the five accused, including Chauhan, with the death of Ramdeo and Chhotey. It would be seen from the said findings that the learned Judge accepted the evidence that Chauhan was in the shooting pa~ty that day, that he carried a gun with him, that two . persons were killed with gun shots but for some reason with the correctness of which we are not concerned here he acquitted Chauhan. It is, therefore, manifest that whether Chauhan was guilty or not, at the time the false entries were made in the case diary there was every likelihood of Chauhan being prosecuted along with others for causing the death of Ramdeo and Chotey. Indeed as e~pected Chauhan and others were prosecuted though they were acquitted. On the said facts the mere acquittal of Chauhan cannot displace the finding of the learned Judge that the appellant manipulated the record with an intent thereby lo save or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby save Chauhan from legal punishment. If the appellant had made the false entry m the diary and manipuiated other records with a view to save Chauhan from the legal punishment that might be inflicted upon him, the mere fact that he •- , )- ' - '- 2 S.C.R. ·suPREME COURT REPORTS 43 was subsequently acquitted of the offence could not make it anytheless an offence .under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Nor can we accept the contention that the acquittal of Chauhan for the abetment of the offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code committed by the appellant affects the conviction of the appellant under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The gravamen of that charge against Chauhan is that he abetted the appellant in making a false entry in the diary and manipulating the record to fit in with that false entry. The Additional Sessions Judge considered the following three points in connection with the said offence :- (1) Whether Chauhan abetted Maulud Ahmad in making false entries in the General Diary of Police Station Mailani ? (2) Whether Chauhan deposited his gun at Police Station Mailani in the night between December 14 and 15, 1956, and got the entry of the deposit in the General Diary antedated, i. e. according to the entry the gun was shown to be deposited on. December 13, 1956, at 18-45 hours and whether Chauhan did it after consultation with Dilawar ? (3) W'hether Maulud Ahmad (accused) made f