Intent under Section 218 IPC sustains conviction despite later acquittal; Police Act limitation does not bar IPC prosecution.

A public servant's conviction under Section 218 IPC was upheld because the decisive question was his intent when making the false record: if he knew the entry was incorrect and intended, or was likely, to save a person from legal punishment, later acquittal of that person did not negate the offence. The Court also held that the three-month limitation in Section 42 of the Police Act applies only to prosecutions for acts done under that Act or the general police powers it confers, and does not bar prosecution for an offence under the IPC. The conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code was vitiated because the person whom the false entry was said to protect had been acquitted; (ii) whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 42 of the Police Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code was vitiated because the person whom the false entry was said to protect had been acquitted.

Analysis: Section 218 punishes a public servant who frames a record in a manner known to be incorrect with intent to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment. The essential inquiry is the appellant's intent at the time of making the false entry. The acquittal of the protected person did not erase the likelihood that he might be prosecuted when the false entry was made, and the later acquittal did not negate the appellant's culpable intention. The conviction of the appellant was therefore not inconsistent with the acquittal of the other accused.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 42 of the Police Act.

Analysis: The three-month limitation in Section 42 applies only to prosecutions for acts done or intended to be done under the Police Act or the general police powers given by that Act. Read with Section 36, the limitation provision does not restrict prosecution for offences punishable under another enactment. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, not for a mere breach of duty under the Police Act. Sections 29 and 44 of the Police Act showed the police diary obligation, but they did not convert the prosecution into one under the Police Act.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by limitation under Section 42 of the Police Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in all respects, and the conviction and sentence were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, the decisive question is the public servant's intent to save a person from legal punishment at the time of making the false record, and a subsequent acquittal of that person does not invalidate the conviction; the limitation in Section 42 of the Police Act applies only to prosecutions under that Act.

---