📘 Section 132 – Public Servant Framing Incorrect Record or Writing under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

on

📘 Section 132 – Public Servant Framing Incorrect Record or Writing under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

🔍 Introduction

Public servants are entrusted with immense authority and responsibility. Whether it's a police officer, revenue official, or magistrate, they handle sensitive matters that significantly affect citizens' lives. Given their authority, the law demands a high standard of honesty and impartiality. Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 plays a crucial role in maintaining accountability by penalizing public servants who knowingly frame or draft incorrect records or documents with intent to cause harm or injustice.

This provision ensures that government records, judicial proceedings, and official documents remain trustworthy. In this blog, we will break down the section’s language, explore its implications, examine real-life examples, and assess its broader impact.

📜 Bare Text of Section 132 – Framing Incorrect Record or Writing

"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, shall be punished..."

🧩 Essential Elements of Section 132

To invoke Section 132 of the BNS, certain legal ingredients must be proved:

1. The Offender Must Be a Public Servant

Only those officially appointed under the government and responsible for record-making are covered.

2. Charged With the Duty to Prepare Records

The public servant must be authorized or directed to create or maintain official documentation—e.g., police diaries, land revenue entries, FIRs, court documents.

3. Knowingly Frames an Incorrect Record

There must be clear knowledge and intention of framing a false document. A simple mistake or negligence is not enough.

4. Intent to Cause Harm or Knowledge of Potential Harm

The action must be done either:

  • With intent to cause loss/injury, or

  • Knowing that such a result is likely.

🏛️ Scope of Application

✅ Covered:

  • Police officers entering false evidence in FIRs

  • Revenue officials misreporting land boundaries

  • Medical officers falsifying postmortem reports

  • Court clerks altering orders or documents

  • Jailors manipulating prisoner records

❌ Not Covered:

  • Honest mistakes made without ill-intent

  • Clerical errors without evidence of malice

  • Non-public servants or private employees

⚖️ Punishment under Section 132

Section 132 of BNS prescribes:

  • Imprisonment up to 7 years

  • And fine

The term of punishment reflects the seriousness of the breach of trust involved in such an offence. It acts as a deterrent against official misconduct.

📘 Historical Context: IPC vs BNS

Aspect Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Section Number Section 218 Section 132
Focus Framing incorrect records by public servants Same, but modernized
Structure Similar provision Retained with updated language
Relevance Addressed British administrative misconduct Now applies to Indian bureaucracy

The BNS modernizes the penal code but retains the core values of accountability in governance.

💡 Illustrative Examples of Offences under Section 132

1. Police Officer Altering FIR

A police officer intentionally alters names in an FIR to shield the real accused due to political pressure.

2. Revenue Officer Changing Land Records

A Tehsildar illegally alters boundary maps to favor a land mafia group in exchange for bribes.

3. Doctor Changing Postmortem Findings

A medical officer forges autopsy results to show death by accident rather than murder under duress from powerful individuals.

4. Court Clerk Modifying Bail Orders

A court clerk secretly edits a bail order before dispatch to delay the release of an undertrial prisoner.

🧠 Legal Interpretation and Case Law

🔹 1. Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. (1998)

Held that a public servant can only be punished if intent to cause injury is established beyond doubt.

🔹 2. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987)

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for accurate documentation and declared that “forged or incorrect records shake the foundation of justice.”

🔹 3. State of Rajasthan v. Sampat Ram (1970)

Court observed that any manipulation of records to favor a party was “not a clerical mistake but criminal misconduct.”

🧪 Burden of Proof

To convict a person under Section 132, the prosecution must prove:

  • The accused was a public servant

  • They had the duty to prepare a record

  • The record was knowingly made incorrect

  • The act was done with intent or knowledge of harm

If even one of these ingredients is missing, the accused cannot be punished under Section 132.

🔎 Procedural Safeguards

🔹 Requirement of Sanction

No court can take cognizance of this offence unless prior government sanction is obtained, as per Section 219 of BNS.

🔹 Protection under Article 311 of Constitution

Public servants are also protected from dismissal or punishment without due departmental enquiry.

🌐 International Perspective on Misconduct by Public Officials

Country Equivalent Provision
USA Falsification of Government Records (18 U.S. Code § 1001)
UK Misconduct in Public Office (Common Law offence)
Canada Criminal breach of trust (Section 122, Canadian Criminal Code)
Australia Public Officer Offences under the Crimes Act 1900

India's Section 132 aligns with international laws that stress ethical governance and accurate documentation.

🔍 Real-Life Examples (India)

⚖️ Case 1: Falsified FIR in Custodial Death

A police inspector entered fake injuries in a custodial death report to make it appear as a suicide. After investigation, he was prosecuted under the old IPC Section 218 (now BNS 132).

⚖️ Case 2: Manipulated Land Records

A village Patwari changed land ownership records in favor of a builder. The scam was uncovered, and prosecution initiated for framing incorrect official records.

🎯 Purpose of Section 132

The section aims to:

  • Promote transparency and accountability

  • Discourage malicious governance

  • Maintain citizens’ faith in public institutions

  • Protect individuals from fraudulent official actions

It is especially important in rural India, where local officials have unchecked influence over basic rights like land, caste certificates, and police complaints.

🧾 Summary and Key Points

Feature Details
Applicable To Public servants preparing official records
Mens Rea (Intent) Must be knowing and deliberate
Punishment Up to 7 years imprisonment + fine
Sanction Required? Yes, under Section 219 BNS
Burden of Proof Lies on prosecution to show intent and knowledge
Objective Prevent official misconduct and preserve trust in government

💭 Conclusion

Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a cornerstone of ethical governance in India. It sends a clear message: public servants are not above the law. If they use their official position to manipulate facts, they will face serious consequences. In an era of increasing citizen awareness, such provisions act as safeguards against injustice, ensuring that power is exercised with integrity.

📘 Coming Up Next:

➡️ Section 133 – Public Servant Preparing False Record to Save a Person from Punishment

 

Comments

Post a Comment