IPC – Offences relating to Public Justice- Part – 16

Under the Indian Penal Code, offences relating to false evidence and offences against public justice are contained in Chapter XI. In last session we had studied offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence, or using of false evidence under sections 191 to 204. In this session we will study offences against public justice, which is further divided into two sessions. In this session we will have a discussion basically on four points, namely –

• False personation under section 205 and 229.
• Abuse of process of courts of justice under sections 206-210.
• False charge of an offence under section 211.
• Screening and harbouring offenders under sections 201, and 212 – 216A.

Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (dealing with the contempt of the lawful authority of public servants) or Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of that court by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.

(1) PERSONATION AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

We had discussed personation in election and where a person wear garb of public servant or armed force etc. in their respective sessions. In this session we are going to discuss on two personations, false personation in legal proceeding under section 205 and personation of a juror or assessor under section 229.

(1.1) FALSE PERSONATION TO ACT IN LEGAL PROCEEDING

Section 205 made false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution as an offence. It says that whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, is referred false personation. Who personates shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or with fine, or with both.

 The gist of the offence of false personation is the feigning to be another, known person. The Court conceded that ‘personation’ does not necessarily involve assumption of the personality of a genuine or existing person and that assuming the personality of a fictitious or imaginary person also is comprised within the meaning of ‘personation’. It was pointed out by the Court that ‘personation’ within the meaning of sections 140, 170, 171, 171D and 415 includes assuming the personality of a fictitious or imaginary person.[1]

It was held by court that to personate is to pretend to be particular person. The offence consists not merely in cheating by using a fictitious name but by falsely assuming to be some real other person and in that fictitious name making an admission, confessing judgements or causing any process to be issued.[2] In this case, A personated B at a trial with B’s consent which was given to save himself from the trouble of making an appearance in person before a Magistrate, it was held that A was guilty of an offence under this section, and B was guilty of abetment of the offence.

(1.2) PERSONATION OF A JUROR OR ASSESSOR

Section 229 defines the offence of ‘personation of a juror or assessor’. According to this section whoever by personation or otherwise, shall intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be returned, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case in which he knows that he is not entitled by law to be so returned, empanelled or sworn, or knowing himself to have been so returned, empanelled or sworn contrary to law, shall voluntarily serve on such jury or as such assessor, is referred as personation of a juror or assessor. He shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

To bring a under the charge of “personation of a juror or assessor”, following essential ingredients are necessary :

(i)      A person by personation or otherwise voluntarily serve on jury or as assessor.

(ii)     Intentionally cause, or knowingly suffer himself to be resumed, empanelled or sworn as a juryman or assessor in any case.

(2) ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE

 Sections 206 to 210 deal with fraudulent or dishonest act of a person abusing processes of court of justice. Section 206 deals with fraudulent removal/concealment of property; Section 207 deals with fraudulent claim to property; Sections 208 and 210 deals with fraudulently suffering or obtaining decree for sum not due and Section 209 deals with dishonestly making a false claim in Court.

(2.1) FRAUDULENT REMOVAL/CONCEALMENT OF PROPERTY

Section 206 makes offence of fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution. It says that whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced, by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The word ‘taken’ has been used in the sense of ‘seized’ or ‘taken possession of’. The concealment or removal of property must be to prevent the property from being taken. Where the property is already taken and the removal is subsequent, the offence under this section is not committed.

A creditor commits no fraud who anticipates other creditors and obtained a discharge of his debt by the assignment of any property which has not already been attached by another creditor.

(2.2) FRAUDULENT CLAIM TO PROPERTY

Section 207 makes offence of fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution. It says that whoever fraudulently accepts, receives or claims any property or any interest therein, knowing that he has no right or rightful claim to such property or interest, or practices any deception touching any right to any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or a satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made or which knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

This section deals with the receiver, acceptor or claimer of the property who tries to prevent its seizure as a forfeiture. It punishes the accomplice, just as the section 206 punishes the principal offender. It is clear that under sections 206 and 207, a civil suit must be actually pending before a court, and not merely intended to be filed.

(2.3) FRAUDULENTLY SUFFERING OR OBTAINING DECREE FOR SUM NOT DUE

Section 208 and section 210, both are similar kind of offences and punished the offender for two years of imprisonment or with fine or with both. Section 208 punish the offender who fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due and section 210 punish the offender for fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due.

Section 208 says that whoever fraudulently causes or suffer a decree or order to be passed against him at the suit of any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum that is due to such person or for any property or interest or property to which such person is not entitled, or fraudulently causes or suffers a decree order to be executed against him after it has been satisfied, or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

 Illustration.- A institutes a suit against Z. Z knowing that A is likely to obtain a decree against him, fraudulently suffers a judgment to pass against him for a larger amount at the suit of B, who has no just claim against him, in order that B, either on his own account or for the benefit of Z, may share in the proceeds of any sale of Z’s property which may be made under A’s decree. Z has committed an office under this section.

On the other hand, section 210 says that whoever fraudulently obtains a decree or order against any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum than is due, or for any property or interest in property to which he is not entitled, or fraudulently causes a decree or order to be executed against any person after it has been satisfied or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, or fraudulently suffers or permits any such act to be done in his name, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(2.4) DISHONESTLY MAKING FALSE CLAIM IN COURT

Section 209 says that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years and fine.

Offence under this section has two ingredients, namely : (i) The person should act fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person; and (ii) He should make a false claim in a Court of Justice.

This section relates to false and fraudulent claims in a court of justice. The offence will be complete as soon as suit is filed. If a person applies for the execution of a degree which has already been executed his act will be an offence.

(3) FALSE CHARGE OF AN OFFENCE

Section 211 of IPC is one of the important sections of offences against public justice. It says that making of false charge of an offence with intention to injure is a specific offence. According to this section whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

And if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.

In fact, section 211, enumerates two offences

(a) The person must have intention to cause injury to any person –

• He institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, and
• He knows that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding against that person

(b) The person must have intention to cause injury to any person –

• He falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, and
• He knows that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge against that person.

Further, for the purpose of gravity of offence it prescribed two categories of offence –

(i)      When the proceeding is instituted or falsely charged for the offence of death sentence/ life imprisonment / imprisonment for seven years or more – punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.

(ii)     When the proceeding is instituted or falsely charged for the offence of punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment is – punishable with imprisonment up to two years and/or with fine.

Institution of criminal proceedings presupposes the existence of false charge of an offence.[3]

The expression “or falsely charges” are not restricted by the words “institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding”. The Legislature according to the submission has provided in this section for two kinds of acts : (i) the institution of proceeding and (ii) making a false charge.[4]

Case law.- In a case the ‘M’ had lodged a report with the police, charging ‘R’ with certain cognizable offences. While the police were investigating into the report, ‘R’ filed a complaint in the Magistrate’s Court alleging that ‘M’ had committed an offence under section 211 by falsely charging ‘R’ with having committed an offence. The Magistrate took cognizance of the R’s complaint under section 190 of the Cr.P.C. At that stage, there were no proceedings in any Court nor any order by any Magistrate for arrest, remand or bail of the ‘R’ in connection with the M’s report to the police. Later, however, the police arrested the respondent in connection with the A’s report and filed a charge sheet against him, but the case ended in an order of discharge. The Supreme Court held that a complaint for commission of an offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC is maintainable even at the stage of investigation into a First Information Report.[5]

False evidence is not false charge.- The question before the court was whether by giving false evidences against R, ‘A’ has charged him within contemplation of Section 211. Every false and incorrect statement does not make it incumbent on Court to Order prosecution. Court has to exercise judicial discretion and order prosecution only in larger interests of administration of justice. It is only in cases of glaring falsehood where conviction is likely, that Court should order prosecution. In present case, ‘R’ has not been convicted to make his false evidence worth prosecution. The Supreme Court held that, High Court had no jurisdiction to file complaint against ‘A’ and should be set aside.[6]

Proceeding under section 211 & section 500 is not correct.- Offence under Section 211 of IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of Court.  Bar imposed under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., clearly attracted to complaint of section 211. The Supreme Court observed that it would not subserve ends of justice, if a person allowing a person to continue with prosecution against the appellant for offences under section 211 and section 500. It may result in appellants getting vexed twice on same facts.[7] Offence under section 500 may be considered after conclusion of court on the complaint under section 211.

Section 211 and section 182.- Both sections are not similar. Under section 182, the accused has passed false information to public authority on which authority has taken action but does not compulsorily means of prosecution or a suit. On other hand, under section 211, it is a person who has filed a false charge against a person in court of justice.

(4) SCREENING AND HARBOURING OFFENDERS

Screening or harbouring an offender is punishable under sections 201, 212, 213, 214, 2115, 216 and 216A. In last session, we have discussed section 201, so here we are going to discuss remaining offences.

(4.1) HRBOURING OFFENDER

Section 212 says that whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reasons to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment.

This Offence under this section, extended to the offence of murder, culpable homicide, aggravated forms of theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, mischief by fir and explosive substance and house trespass.

This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender. 

Illustration.- A, knowing that B has committed dacoity, knowingly conceals B in order to screen him from legal punishment. Here, as B is liable to imprisonment for life, A is liable to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding three years, and also liable to fine.

(4.2) TAKING GIFT TO SCREEN AN OFFENDER FROM PUNISHMENT 

Section 213 says that whoever accepts or attempts to obtain, or agrees to accept, any gratification for himself or any other person, or any restitution of property to himself or any other person, in consideration of his concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment. 

(4.3) OFFERING GIFT OF PROPERTY IN CONSIDERATION OF SCREENING OFFENDER

Section 214 says that whoever gives or causes, or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, restores or causes the restoration of any property to any person, in consideration of that person’s concealing an offence, or of his screening my person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment.

The provisions of sections 213 and 214 do not extend to any case in which the offence may lawfully be compounded.

(4.4) HARBOURING OFFENDER WHO HAS ESCAPED FROM CUSTODY

Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody.- According to section 216, whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody; is an offence.

Harbouring offender whose apprehension has been ordered.- Whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours of conceals that person which the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, is an offence.

“Offence” in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India.

Exception.- This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended. 

(4.5) PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE OF SCREENING OF HARBOURING

(4.6) HARBOURING ROBBERS OR DACOITS

Section 216A says that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with RI to seven years and fine.

For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether the robbery or dacoity is intended to be committed, or has been committed, within or without India. This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is by the husband or wife of the offender.

(4.7) TAKING GIFT TO HELP TO RECOVER STOLEN PROPERTY

Section 215 says that whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any movable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(5) SUMMARY OF OFFENCE AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE I 

* * * * *

[1]    See State of UP v. Inder Sen AIR 1961 All 62, 1961 CriLJ 30.

[2]    Suppakou, (1863) 3 MHC 450.

[3]    Bala Prasad, (1952) 2 Raj 44.

[4]    Haridas v. State of West Bengal, (1964) 7 SCR 237.

[5]    M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1967 SC 528 : 1967 CriLJ 528.

[6]    Santokh Singh v.  Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190 : (1973) 2 SCC 406.

[7]    Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, 2011 (12) SCALE 609 : 2012 CriLJ 1060