Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: Section 201 – Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury

Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Simplified Explanation

This section addresses the misconduct of public servants who deliberately frame, prepare, or translate incorrect documents or electronic records with the intent to harm or with knowledge that their actions are likely to cause harm. It emphasizes the importance of accuracy and integrity in official documentation.

Key Elements of Section 201

1. Applicability

The section applies to public servants who are:

• Officially tasked with preparing or translating documents or electronic records.

2. The Offense

To establish an offense under Section 201, the following must be proven:

1. Preparation or Translation of a Document or Electronic Record:
   • The public servant is responsible for creating or translating a record as part of their official duties.
2. Knowledge or Belief of Incorrectness:
   • The public servant knows or believes the document or record to be incorrect at the time of its preparation or translation.
3. Intent or Knowledge of Likely Injury:
   • The public servant acts with the intent to cause injury, or
   • The public servant knows it is likely their actions may cause injury to any person.

3. Punishment

• Imprisonment: Up to three years (can be of either description: rigorous or simple).
• Fine: As determined by the court.
• Both: In serious cases, both imprisonment and a fine may be imposed.

Objective of Section 201

1. Integrity of Public Records:
   • Ensures that public records and documents remain accurate, reliable, and free from manipulation.
2. Accountability of Public Servants:
   • Deters public servants from abusing their authority by creating false or misleading records.
3. Protection of Individuals:
   • Safeguards individuals from potential harm caused by incorrect official records, such as wrongful accusations, property disputes, or administrative errors.

Illustrative Examples

Example 1: Manipulation of Official Records

A public servant tasked with preparing a property ownership document deliberately inserts false information to favor one party, knowing it may harm the rightful owner. This act violates Section 201.

Example 2: Incorrect Translation

A public servant translating a court order knowingly mistranslates critical terms, causing the implementation of the order to harm an individual. This constitutes an offense under Section 201.

Example 3: Falsified Electronic Records

An officer alters entries in an electronic database to show inflated payments to contractors, intending to harm an individual whistleblower. This act falls within the ambit of Section 201.

Legal Analysis

Mens Rea (Mental Element):

The section requires intent or knowledge:

• Intent: The public servant must have acted with the purpose of causing harm.
• Knowledge: Even if there is no direct intent, the public servant’s awareness that their actions are likely to cause injury is sufficient.

Actus Reus (Physical Act):

• The preparation or translation of the document must be incorrect and knowingly done by the public servant.

Comparison with Prior Laws

This provision is derived from Section 167 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addressed similar misconduct by public servants. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita:

• Modernizes the language to include electronic records, reflecting the digitization of governance.
• Retains the focus on preventing harm caused by official misconduct.

Significance in Modern Governance

1. Inclusion of Electronic Records:
   • Recognizes the growing reliance on digital records in administrative and judicial processes.
   • Holds public servants accountable for the integrity of digital documentation.
2. Broad Applicability:
   • Applies to a wide range of public servants, from clerks and translators to high-ranking officials.
3. Deterrence of Corruption and Malpractice:
   • Serves as a deterrent against manipulation of official records for personal or political gain.

Key Takeaways for Law Students

1. Understanding Accountability:
   • Section 201 highlights the principle that public servants must exercise their duties with honesty and accuracy.
2. Relevance of Intent and Knowledge:
   • The section emphasizes the importance of establishing mens rea to prove the offense.
3. Contemporary Adaptations:
   • The inclusion of electronic records ensures the law remains relevant in the context of digital governance.