Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
IPC Section 218: Simplified Explanation
IPC Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence committed by a public servant who, intending to save a person from legal punishment or protect property from forfeiture, deliberately frames an incorrect record or writing. This section addresses the misconduct of public officials who falsify documents or records to obstruct justice or prevent the legal consequences of an offence.
This section aims to ensure the integrity and accuracy of public records and prevent abuse of authority by public servants.
Is IPC Section 218 bailable?
Yes, IPC Section 218 is a bailable offence. This means that an individual accused under this section has the right to seek bail from the court, and the court is likely to grant bail as per the legal provisions.
IPC Section 218 Punishment
The punishment for an offence under IPC Section 218 is imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to three years, with a fine, or with both. The punishment underscores the seriousness of the offence, which involves a breach of public trust and manipulation of official records.
Example of IPC Section 218
Consider a scenario where a revenue officer, Amit, is responsible for maintaining land records. Amit’s friend, Ravi, is involved in a land dispute where he risks losing his property due to legal proceedings. To help Ravi, Amit deliberately alters the land records to show that Ravi has legal ownership, thus protecting Ravi’s property from forfeiture. Amit’s framing of incorrect records to save Ravi’s property constitutes an offence under IPC Section 218. Amit can be prosecuted for falsifying official records to obstruct justice.
In another instance, imagine a police officer, Sneha, investigating a case of embezzlement. During the investigation, Sneha finds that her colleague, Rajesh, is the main culprit. To protect Rajesh from punishment, Sneha deliberately writes a false report indicating that the evidence is inconclusive and that Rajesh is not involved. Sneha’s framing of an incorrect report to save Rajesh from legal consequences falls under IPC Section 218. She can be held accountable for her misconduct and for attempting to obstruct justice by falsifying official documents.
