LexMAULUD AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 Conslable-
malcing false entry to save ""other ierson-Arquittal of !he other
person-Conviction
of Head
Constable,
if smtainable-
Limitation-Prosec,.tion
after 3
months
of
~ffence-lj'
barred-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), s 218-
l'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 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.
'
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 res-
pondent.
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, 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
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 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 SessioExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.