MAULUD AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

38

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP.

1962

Cajtnt!ro NMoin Si,, git v. Jolr.ri Mal Pralo/od Rai

Shah, J.

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.

1962

Jitovtmlm, J!J.

MAULUD AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

(S. J. IMAM, K. SuBnA RAO and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)

Criminal Trial-Framing incorrect record-Head Conslable malcing false entry to save ""other ierson-Arquittal of !he other if smtainable person-Conviction of Head Limitation-Prosec,.tion barred-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), s 218- l'olice Act, 1861 (V of 1861), '"· 36, 42.

Constable, after 3 months of

~ffence-lj'

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 acquitt rd but the appellant was convicted under s, 218. The appe llant contended (i) that after the acquittal of C, his conviction under s. 218 could not be sustained and (ii) that the prosecu tion 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.

1961

M•ul•' Abm"4 •• SMa •JU. 1'.

'

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

39

likelihood of a being prosecuted,

Bdd, that the appellant was rightly convicted. Whether C . was guilty or not, at the time the. entry was made there was every 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,

appellant.

for the

G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the

pondent.

res

196:?, November 13. The Judgment of the

Court was delivered by

the

SuBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by Special leave against judgment and order of 1 he Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bertch, confirming th:i.t of the Addi1ion:i.l Sessions Judge, Kheri, convict ing the appellant under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to two years' rigorous im prisonment. The prosecution case may be briefly stated :-

Some Railway officer.i and others, including one Chauhan, Railway Guard, went on two trollies ('1- wards Bhitra for a "shoot. Chauhan had with him a

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 Head constable; 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

'

• "

1952

Ma•lud Ahmad v. Stal• of U. P.

Subha Rao, J.

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 descri ption 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 establi shed:-

(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 returned alone and then all the.members of the party excepting Ramdeo returned to Mailani by the Cane Special.

that Lala

after

42

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

1962 --·

Mau/ud Ahmad v. St•I• of U. P.

Suhba Rao, J.

( 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, there fore, 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 conten tion 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 :-

1962

Maulud A.hn1ad v. Stal• of U. P.

Subba Rao, J.

'

(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 Decem ber 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<tlse entries in the General Diary of Police Station Mailani with the intention to save or knowing it likely that he would thereby save the offenders from legal punishment and by that false entry he was trying to get the evidence of the offences under ~s. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and 26 of the Indian Forest Act to disappear ?

The learned .Judge found on the third point that the appellant intentionally falsified the official record with a view to save Chauhan but he acquitted Chauhan by giving him the benefit of doubt on the ground that his signature was not found against the

1962

Mawlud Ahmad v. Stale of U. P.

Subha Rao, J.

44

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

entry of deposit of the gun on December 13, 1956, ar d also against the entry of the return of the gun on In the view of the learned December 18, 1956. Judge it was not established conclusively that Chauhan abetted the appellant in manipulating the record but that could not exonerate the appellant for it had been held on the evidence that the false entries had been made in the record by the appellant with a view to save Chauhan. Whether the acquittal of Chauhan was correct or not, the conviction of the appellant is not inconsistent with that of the acquittal of Chauhan. That apart it appears to us from the record that the acquittal of Chauhan is not justified in the circumstances of the case. Though we cannot convict him as the State has not preferred an appeal to the High Court against his acquittal, we cannot rely upon that acquittal to acquit the appellant against whom the case has been proved to the hilt. We, therefore, hold that the conviction of the appel lant is not inconsistent with the acquittal of Chauhan.

The second question that is the_ question of limitation depends upon the provisions of s. 42 of the Police Act. Section 42 re.ads :-

'

"All x x x x prosecutions against any person, which may be lawfully brought for any thing done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act, or under the general police powers hereby given shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and not, otherwise, x x x x x x."

-

The period of three months prescribed for commenc ing a prosecution under this section is only with res pect to prosecution of a person for something done or mtended to be done by him under the provis.ions of the Police Act or under general Police powers given by the Act. Section 42 does r.ot apply to prosecution

19i2

Maulud Ahmad •• Stal• of U. P.

Subba Rao, J.

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

45

person for anything clone under the against any provisions of any other Act or under Police powers conferred under any other Act. Under s. :Hi nothing contained in the Police Act shall be construed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any Regulation or Act for any offence made punishable by this Act c.r for being liable under any other Regu· lation or Act or any other or higher penalty or punishment than is provided for such offence by this Act. This section makes it clear that the provisions of the Act including s. 42 do not preclude a person from being prosecuted for an offence under any othe.: Act. A combined reading of these provisions leads to the conclusion that s. 42 only applies to a prosecu tion against a person for an offence committed under the Police Act.

Under s. 29 of the Police Act a Police officer, who is guilty of any violation of a duty, shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to a penalty prescribed thereunder. Section 44 thereof imposes a duty on every officer in-charge of a Police Station to keep a General Diary in such form as prescribed. If the appellant did not discharge his duty in the matter of keeping a regular diary, he had committed an offence under s. 29 of the Act. If he was prosecuted for such an offence under s. 42, it should be done within the time laid down thereunder, but the prosecution in the present case was for an offence under s. 218 of the Indian ·Penal Code which is an offence under a different act and for which a much higher punishment is prescribed. By reason of s. 36 of the Police Act, section 42 thereof cannot apply to such a prosecution.

An appeal is made for the reduction of the sentence on the ground that the Head Conatable was only a tool in the hands af a superior officer who might have been approached by Chauhan. There is nothing on the record to disclose that Chauhan

1962

Maulud Ahmad v. Stale of U. P.

Sub~a Rao, J.

46

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

approached any superior officer in the Police Depart ment and that the appellant had manipulated the records on the dictation of such an officer. This is a pure surmise based upon an observation made by the learned Judge of the High Court in the judgment. . There is nothing improbable in Chauhan or some other person interested in him directly approaching the appellant and the appellant acting in the manner he did for consideration or otherwise. If a police officer manipulates the record such as police diary etc., it will be the end of honest criminal investigation in our country. Such offences shall receive deterrent punishment. The punishment awarded errs more on the side of leniency than otherwise.

For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the decision of the High Court is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

1962

November, 14,

HAJI T. J. ABDUL SHAKOOR AND OTHERS v. BIJAY KUMAR KAPUR AND OTHERS

(S. J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. M~DHOLKAR, JJ.)

Compromise Decree--Oanstructinn ~·t)ornpromise provid ing sale of mart.gaged properties-Executi(J,, 11•·oceedings-Main li!Uc (Act 5 of 1908), tainability-Oode of Civil Procedure, 0. 23, r.3

A suit instituted by the respondents for the recovery of money due under a simple mortgage from the appellants was compromised by the parties under a memo dated September 30, 1955, and the court passed a decree as per the terms of the compromise. By cl. I of the memo the defendants agreed to a

•

"

'-- ·