Diary entry that will be read by a board of inquiry
During a night patrol near a culvert, a Rangers party stopped a truck. The sepoy on duty writes the following narrative in the daily diary:
"At about 2130 hours on 14 March, a party of smugglers were seen near the culvert. I was approached by a man who said he had saw three men loading sacks into a truck. The truck, which was later seized, they drove off when challenged. Nobody informed the check post, which was a mistake. The matter was reported and necessary action was taken."
The duty officer must sign the entry before it goes to the company commander. He has three concerns: the entry will be read by a board of inquiry, it does not say who did what, and the timings cannot be checked. The sepoy's English is workable, but his schooling ended at matriculation.
1. Identify five faults in the entry, name the type of fault, and give the correction for each.
Read the worked answer
"a party of smugglers were seen" - subject–verb agreement. "A party" is singular: was seen. The word "smugglers" also prejudges guilt before any court finding; write "unidentified men" until the case is decided.
"he had saw three men" - wrong past-participle form. Correct: he had seen three men.
"The truck, which was later seized, they drove off when challenged" - misplaced relative clause and unattached agent. As written, the truck drove off. Correct: The men drove the truck off when challenged; the truck was later seized.
"Nobody informed the check post, which was a mistake" - vague relative "which" (what was the mistake?) and opinion instead of fact. Correct: The check post was not informed before 2200 hours.
"The matter was reported and necessary action was taken" - agentless passive with no facts. State who reported, to whom, at what time, and what the action was.
Naming the fault type matters, because the officer's correction note should teach the sepoy a rule, not just fix one sentence.
2. Rewrite the passage in plain past tense and active voice, in not more than 70 words, without adding facts the sepoy does not have.
Read the worked answer
Model rewrite (placeholders are facts only the sepoy can supply):
"At about 2130 hours on 14 March my patrol stopped a truck near the culvert. An informant told me that three men had loaded sacks into the truck. When challenged, the three men drove the truck away. The check post was not informed before 2200 hours. I reported the incident to the duty officer at [time], and the truck was seized at [place] and handed to [custody]."
Why this version: every sentence has a stated actor ("my patrol", "an informant", "the three men", "I"); the tense stays in the past; "smugglers" becomes "three men", which is what the sepoy actually saw; and opinion ("which was a mistake") is replaced by the fact that lets the board form its own view. The placeholders are deliberate - a rewrite must not invent a time, a place or a custodian, because an invented fact in a diary destroys the whole entry at inquiry.
3. Advise the duty officer on what must be obtained before he signs, and explain why a board of inquiry will prefer the rewritten version.
Read the worked answer
Obtain before signing: the times the men were challenged and when they drove off (the diary gives only 2130 for the sighting); a description and registration of the truck, where it is now held and under whose custody; and the names and numbers of the patrol members, including who spoke to the informant and who ordered the challenge.
Why the rewrite is preferred: a board reads for three things - who did what, when, and how it is known. The original fails all three: agents vanish into passives ("the matter was reported"), times are missing, and the informant's statement is not attributed. The rewrite can be tested line by line against a witness, a log book or a seizure receipt.
The officer should not simply rewrite it himself and sign. He should have the sepoy produce the corrected entry in his own hand, with the missing facts filled in, and the officer should initial the correction. A diary in the officer's polished prose, contradicted later by the sepoy in the witness box, is worse than plain English in the sepoy's own words.