https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287937 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. en-us Tue, 13 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2020 17:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287937 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287937