Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: AIR 1926 Bom 555
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1926-0001Surat, GujaratJudgment 17 June 1926
Emperor v. [name withheld]
The Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction of Sub-Inspector by the Sessions Judge, Surat, for framing an incorrect record (Section 218 IPC), fabricating false evidence (Section 193), using fabricated evidence (Section 196) and forgery (Section 465), dismissing his appeal on 7 April 1926. On a Government Pleader application for enhancement, the Court held on 17 June 1926 that one year rigorous imprisonment was unduly lenient given the abuse of investigative powers. The Court enhanced each term to two years rigorous imprisonment (concurrent) and maintained the Rs 500 fine under Section 218 IPC. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 17 June 1926 in Criminal Appeal (dismissed 7 April 1926); Revision for enhancement of sentence under Section 439 CrPC (decided 17 June 1926), the Bombay High Court (Coram: Fawcett, Madgavkar, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Police Department, Surat.
- Register number
- GJ 05 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal (dismissed 7 April 1926); Revision for enhancement of sentence under Section 439 CrPC (decided 17 June 1926) / AIR 1926 Bom 555
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: Fawcett, Madgavkar, JJ.), 17 June 1926
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Police Department, Surat
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The offences were of very great seriousness; for the Sub-Inspector abused his powers of investigation of crime in a manner that strikes at the root of the proper administration of justice.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 17 June 1926 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“The offences were of very great seriousness; for the Sub-Inspector abused his powers of investigation of crime in a manner that strikes at the root of the proper administration of justice.” (para 12)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
17 Jun 1926
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: AIR 1926 Bom 555
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.