Padmanaba Payi Kanniah vs Emperor

In this case the appellant and another were charged with offences under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was

convicted under these sections. Such evidence as there is, however, shows that the alteration of the document was made not by the appellant, but

by the man who was charged along with him. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code was,

therefore, wrong. We are asked; however, to consider the propriety of convicting the appellant for abetment of these offences. We have not been

referred to any authority in support of the proposition that when a person has been charged with a certain offence and has been convicted of that

offence, the appellate Court can, on finding that the conviction is not sustainable, convict the accused of abetment of that offence. No doubt u/s

423 of the Criminal Procedure Code the appellate Court has power to alter a finding, but we take it that that power cannot be used arbitrarily but

only in accordance with other provisions of the Code. Those provisions are to be found in Sections 237 and 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code

and neither of these covers a case like the present. The ruling in Regina v. Chand Nar and Pirbhai Adamji 11 B.H.C.R. 240, is clear authority for

holding that it is not open to a Court to find a man guilty of the abetment of an offence on a charge of the offence itself, and we agree with the

reasoning on which the ruling is based.

We set aside the convictions and acquit the accused of offences under Sections 487 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bond is

discharged.