Padmanabha Panji Kannaya vs King-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, shews 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 I.P.C. 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. Chund Burard Phirbhai Adamji (1874) 11 Bom. 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 conviction and acquit the accused of offences u/s 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal

Code. His bail bond is discharged.