Section 218 IPC

---

Introduction of Section 218 IPC

Section 218 IPC is a comprehensive legal framework that defines crimes and their punishments in India. IPC Section 218 deals with the misconduct of public servants who intentionally frame incorrect records or writings to save a person from punishment or to prevent property from being forfeited. This section is crucial in maintaining the integrity of public institutions and ensuring that those in positions of authority act in the best interest of justice. It highlights the importance of accountability and ethical conduct among public servants, reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law.

---

---

What is IPC Section 218 ?

Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames 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, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or 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, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both

---

IPC 218 in Simple Points

1. Public Servant’s Duty to Maintain Accurate Records
   Public servants are responsible for maintaining accurate and truthful records. IPC Section 218 targets those who intentionally create false or incorrect records to manipulate the justice system. This ensures that public servants act with integrity and do not misuse their authority for personal gain or to protect others unlawfully.
2. Intent to Save from Punishment or Forfeiture
   The offense requires the public servant to act with the specific intent to save a person from legal punishment or property from forfeiture. This means they knowingly create false records to help someone avoid consequences or protect assets from being seized by law.
3. Non-Bailable Offense
   IPC Section 218 is a non-bailable offense, meaning the accused cannot claim bail as a right. Bail is granted only at the discretion of the court, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need to hold public servants accountable.
4. Punishment: Imprisonment and Fine
   The punishment includes imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. The severity of the penalty depends on the nature and extent of the falsification, serving as a deterrent against corruption and misuse of power.
5. Impact on Public Trust and Justice
   This section ensures accountability among public servants, maintaining public trust in the justice system. It prevents corruption and ensures that justice is administered fairly, reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law.

---

Section 218 IPC Overview

IPC Section 218 addresses the offense committed by a public servant who intentionally creates false or misleading records or writings with the intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture. It is designed to prevent corruption and misuse of power by those entrusted with public duties. This section ensures that public servants act impartially and in accordance with the law, safeguarding the justice system from manipulation and bias.

IPC Section 218: Public Servant Framing Incorrect Record or Writing with Intent to Save Person from Punishment or Property from Forfeiture

1. Definition of a Public Servant
A public servant, as defined under Indian law, is an individual employed by the government or a public authority to perform official duties. This includes government officials, police officers, judges, and other personnel entrusted with public responsibilities. Their role is to uphold the law and ensure justice. When a public servant frames incorrect records or writings, it undermines public trust and the integrity of the system. This section specifically addresses situations where such actions are intentional and aimed at protecting someone from punishment or property from forfeiture. It highlights the ethical and legal obligations of public servants to act impartially.

2. Framing Incorrect Records or Writings
Framing incorrect records or writings refers to a public servant intentionally creating false or misleading documents. This could involve altering official records, fabricating evidence, or preparing false reports. Such actions are considered a breach of trust and a violation of the oath taken by public servants. The act must be deliberate and not due to negligence or oversight. This section emphasizes the importance of accuracy and honesty in official documentation to maintain order and justice in society. Any deviation with malicious intent is punishable under this provision.

3. Intent to Save a Person from Punishment
The core element of this section is the intent to save a person from lawful punishment. This means the public servant knowingly creates false records or writings to prevent someone from facing legal consequences for their actions. For example, a police officer might fabricate evidence to help a suspect avoid conviction. Such actions are not only unethical but also illegal, as they obstruct justice. The law aims to prevent misuse of authority by public servants to protect individuals from rightful punishment. This ensures that justice is served without bias or favoritism.

4. Intent to Save Property from Forfeiture
Another key aspect is the intent to save property from forfeiture, which refers to preventing the lawful seizure of assets. Forfeiture typically occurs when property is linked to illegal activities, such as proceeds from crime. A public servant might misuse their position to create false records or writings to prevent such confiscation, thereby aiding the offender. This act of framing incorrect documents is a serious offense as it allows criminals to retain ill-gotten gains. The law seeks to deter public servants from engaging in such corrupt practices, ensuring that justice is not compromised for personal or vested interests.

5. Legal Consequences for the Public Servant
A public servant found guilty under IPC Section 218 faces legal consequences, including imprisonment and fines. The severity of the punishment depends on the nature and extent of the falsification. This provision acts as a deterrent, discouraging public servants from abusing their authority. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and even those in positions of power must be held accountable. The legal consequences serve to maintain the integrity of public institutions and ensure that justice is administered fairly.

6. Impact on Public Trust
When public servants frame incorrect records or writings to protect individuals or property, it erodes public trust in the system. Citizens rely on public officials to act in the best interest of justice and society. Any act of corruption or favoritism undermines this trust and damages the credibility of public institutions. This section of the IPC aims to restore and preserve public confidence by penalizing such misconduct. It sends a clear message that the law will not tolerate any form of corruption or misuse of power by those in authority.

7. Role of Intent in Proving the Offense
Intent plays a crucial role in establishing guilt under this section. The prosecution must prove that the public servant deliberately framed incorrect records or writings with the specific intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture. Mere negligence or oversight does not constitute an offense under this provision. The focus is on the malicious intent behind the actions, which distinguishes it from other forms of misconduct. This requirement ensures that only those who knowingly abuse their authority are held accountable.

8. Examples of Violations
Examples of violations under this section include a tax officer intentionally creating false records to protect a wealthy individual from tax evasion charges, or a customs officer fabricating documents to allow illegal goods to pass through without inspection. These actions demonstrate a clear intent to circumvent the law for personal gain or to benefit others. Such examples highlight the importance of this provision in curbing corruption and ensuring that public servants act in accordance with their duties. Real-life cases often serve as reminders of the consequences of such misconduct.

9. Importance of Accountability
Accountability is a cornerstone of good governance, and this section reinforces the need for public servants to be answerable for their actions. By penalizing the framing of incorrect records or writings, the IPC ensures that those in positions of power cannot act with impunity. This promotes transparency and fairness in the administration of justice. It also encourages public servants to perform their duties diligently and ethically, knowing that any deviation will have legal repercussions. Accountability is essential for maintaining the rule of law and upholding democratic values.

10. Broader Implications for Justice
The broader implications of this section extend beyond individual cases to the overall functioning of the justice system. By addressing acts of falsification by public servants, the law seeks to prevent systemic corruption and ensure that justice is not compromised. This provision contributes to a fair and equitable legal system where everyone is treated equally under the law. It also serves as a safeguard against the misuse of power, ensuring that public servants act in the best interest of society. Ultimately, this strengthens the foundation of justice and the rule of law in India.

2 Examples of IPC Section 218

1. Example 1: Police Officer Fabricating Evidence
   A police officer intentionally creates false evidence to help a suspect avoid conviction in a criminal case. This act of framing incorrect records is done with the intent to save the suspect from punishment, making it a violation of IPC Section 218.
2. Example 2: Revenue Officer Altering Land Records
   A revenue officer manipulates land records to prevent the forfeiture of property linked to illegal activities. By framing incorrect records, the officer aims to save the property from being seized, which is an offense under IPC Section 218.

---

Section 218 IPC case laws

1. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Babu Ram (1961)
   In this case, a public servant was accused of fabricating records to protect a person from legal punishment. The court emphasized the importance of intent and held the accused guilty under IPC Section 218, sentencing them to imprisonment and a fine.
2. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2005)
   A revenue officer was found guilty of altering land records to save property from forfeiture. The court ruled that the act was a clear violation of IPC Section 218, and the officer was punished with imprisonment and a fine.
3. State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgiri (1965)
   This case involved a public servant who intentionally created false records to protect a suspect from punishment. The court highlighted the need for accountability among public servants and convicted the accused under IPC Section 218.
4. Krishna Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (2010)
   A police officer was charged under IPC Section 218 for fabricating evidence to help a criminal avoid prosecution. The court found the officer guilty and imposed both imprisonment and a fine, reinforcing the importance of honesty in public service.
5. State of Karnataka vs. Venkatesh (2018)
   In this case, a public servant was accused of manipulating official records to save property from forfeiture. The court ruled that the act was a deliberate violation of IPC Section 218 and sentenced the accused to imprisonment.

---

218 IPC Punishment

1. Imprisonment:
   The offender can face imprisonment of either description (simple or rigorous) for a term that may extend up to three years. The duration of imprisonment depends on the severity of the offense and the intent behind the falsification. This serves as a deterrent, ensuring that public servants do not misuse their authority for personal gain or to protect others unlawfully.
2. Fine:
   In addition to imprisonment, the court may impose a fine on the offender. The amount of the fine is determined by the court based on the circumstances of the case. The fine acts as a financial penalty, further discouraging public servants from engaging in corrupt practices.

---

218 IPC Bailable or non bailable

IPC Section 218 is a non-bailable offense. This means that the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Bail can only be granted at the discretion of the court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The non-bailable nature of this offense reflects its seriousness and the need to ensure that public servants are held accountable for their actions.

---

Section 218 IPC in short information

IPC Section	Offense	Punishment	Bailable/Non-Bailable	Cognizable/Non-Cognizable	Trial By
IPC Section 218	Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save a person from punishment or property from forfeiture	Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both	Bailable	Non-Cognizable	Magistrate

---

IPC Section 218 FAQs

---

If you need support with court proceedings or any other legal matters, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance.

Court or any other marriage-related issues, our https://marriagesolution.in/lawyer-help-1/ website may prove helpful. By completing our enquiry form and submitting it online, we can provide customized guidance to navigate through the process.

---