Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 218: Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 218
-
State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi
Whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger…
-
State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi and Others
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its earlier orders while exercising jurisdiction u/s.528 BNSS [s.482 CrPC]
-
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding that prima facie cognizable offences are made out for investigation against the appellant-officers of the CBI, and directing the Delhi…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another
Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s.482 of the CrPC to quash the…
-
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings…
-
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett Tiger…
-
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others
Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed…
- Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. P.S. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc.
- Nasib Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
- Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
- M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc
- Re : Vijay Kurle & Ors. v. Re:
- Satish Ukey v. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis and Anr.
- Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019 in Re: Mr. Mathews Nedumpara v. .
- Chander Bhan Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
- M. Mahendar Kumar v. M. Mani & Ors.
- Dilawar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Sunil Mahadeo Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
- Sushila Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
- Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh v. State of Bihar and Others
- State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
- K.H. Shekarappa & Others v. State of Karnataka
- Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
- Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana and Ors.
- State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Asha Arun Gawali and Anr.
- P.P. Unikrishnan and Anr. v. Puttiyottil Alikutty and Anr.
- Muneshwar (Dead) by Lrs v. Raja Mohammad Khan and Ors.
- Arvinder Vir Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr
- Satbir v. Surat Singh and Ors.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors.
- Gauri Shanker Sharma Etc. v. State of U.P. Etc.