Legal Provisions of Section 120 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
This section is similar in nature to section 118 of the Code. Whereas section 118 deals with concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, this section deals with concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.
The section states that whenever an abettor has intention to facilitate or he has knowledge that it is likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment, and voluntarily conceals, either by an act or by an illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth, and if the offence be not committed, to one eighth, of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Image Source: lawnn.com
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint lodged under sections 466, 469 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, and made under the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which was pending when the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into existence, must be proceeded with as a warrant case in accordance with the provisions of the new Code and not as a sessions inquiry as provided under the old Code.
In State v. Dr. S.P. Sharma, the accused persons were charged under sections 420, 468 and 120, Indian Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The hand-writing expert who had compared the writings of the questioned documents with the specimen writings of the accused persons concluded that the documents bore the hand-writings of the accused persons.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Magistrate, however, had not obtained the specimen hand-writings of the accused persons after obtaining their authentic identification. The Rajasthan High Court held that the specimen signatures taken could not be said to be of the accused persons and their comparison with the disputed writings would not connect them with the offences charged.