riminal Appeal No 97 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 1 1961 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No 403 of 1960
section P Sinha and Saukat Hussain for the appellant
G C Mathur and C P Lal
for the respondent
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 the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench confirming that of the Additional Sessions judge Kheri convicting the appellant under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to two years  rigorous im prisonment
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 40 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 645 PM 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 sections 304 A 201109 120 B and 218109 of the Indian Penal Code as
well under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act and they were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Kheri
The appellant was also charged under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code
All the accused were acquitted except the appellant who was convicted under section 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
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
section 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 section 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 ration of any record or other writing frames 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 likely 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 201109 and 218109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 26 of the Indian Forest Act
He was acquitted
Omitting for the time being section 218109 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 42 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 the gun shot injuries of Ramdeo and Chhotey but from the above noted discussion of the evidence it would appear that Ramdeo and Chhotey were likely to have received gun shot injuries between 7 20 to 7 40 PM 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 finding that the learned judge accepted the evidence that Chauhan was in the shooting party 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 expected 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 to save or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby save Chauhan from legal punishment
If the appellant had made the false entry in the diary and manipulated other records with a view to _ave Chauhan from the leggal punishment that might be inflicted upon him the mere fact that he 43 was subsequently acquitted of the offence could not make it anytheless an offence under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code 
Nor can we accept the contention that the acquittal of Chauhan for the abetment of the offence under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code committed bythe appellant affects the conviction of the appellant under section 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 Dccember 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 Whether Maulud Ahmad accused made false 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 sections 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 44 entry of deposit of the gun on December 13 1956 and also against the entry of the return of the gun on December 18 1956
In the view of the learned 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 Chauban
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 appellant is not inconsistent with the acquittal of Chauhan
The second question that is the question of limitation depends upon the provisions of section 42 of the Police Act
Section 42 reads All x x x x prosecutions against any
person which may be lawfully brought for anything 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 Commencing a prosecution under this section is only with respect to prosecution of a person for something done or intended to be done by him under the provisions of the Police Act or under general Police powers given by the Act Section 42 does not apply to prosecution 45 against any person for anything done under the provisions of any other Act or under Police powers conferred under any other Act
Under section 36 nothing contained in the Police Act shall be construed to prevent any per son from being prosecuted under any Regulation or Act for any offence made punishable by this Act or for being liable under any other Regulation 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 section 42 do not preclude a person from
being prosecuted for an offence under any other Act
A combined reading of these provisions leads to the conclusion that section 42 only applies to a prosecution against a per son for an offence committed under the Police Act
Under section 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 section 29 of the Act
If he was prosecuted for such an offence under section 42 it should be done within the time laid down thereunder but the prosecution in the present case was for an offence under section 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 section 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 of a superior officer who might have been approached by Chauhan
There is nothing on the record to disclose that Chauhan 46 approached any superior officer in the Police Department 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


Summary:
C and some other persons went on a shoot with guns where two persons were shot dead
In order to create evidence in his favour C got a false 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 0 had deposited his gun
C and the appellant and the others were tried for various offences including offences under sections 304 A and 218109 Indian Penal Code
All the accussed were acquitted but the appellant was convicted under section 218
The appellant contended that after the acquittal of C his conviction under section 218 couple not be sustained and ii that the prosecution having been launched more than three  months after the entry was made was barred by limitation under section 42 Police Act
39 Held that the appellant was rightly convicted
Whether C was guilty or not at the time the entry was made there Was every likelihood of C being prosecuted for causing the death of two persons
The acquittal of C did not affect the finding that the false entry was made with the intention to save or knowing it to be likely to save C from legal punishment
The acquittal of C under section 218109 did not exonerate the appellant as it had been found that he had made the false entry with a view to save C Held further that the prosecution was not barred by section 42 of the Police Act
Sections 36 and 42 read together showed that section 42 was applicable only to prosecutions for offences under the Police Act and not to prosecutions under the Penal Code or other Acts