# Emperor v. \[name withheld\]

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1926-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1926-0001)

## 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936780/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1926-0001)

**Record:** CW-1926-0001 (compiler id CWC-0494); case SWDERELI-001
**Title:** Emperor v. \[name withheld\]
**Court:** Bombay High Court; judges: Fawcett; Madgavkar
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal (dismissed 7 April 1926); Revision for enhancement of sentence under Section 439 CrPC (decided 17 June 1926) / AIR 1926 Bom 555
**Judgment:** 1926-06-17 (1926, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Surat, Gujarat; police station or unit: Police Department, Surat (Sessions Division Surat); force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** dereliction evidence tampering
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 218; IPC 193; IPC 196; IPC 465
**Officers (gated display forms):** Sub-Inspector, Police Department, Surat (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

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.

> 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.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936780/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** dereliction_evidence_tampering
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Emperor v. \[name withheld\]
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1926 Bom 555', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1926-06-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1926 Bom 555', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936780/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** dereliction evidence tampering
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** SI conviction for fabricated investigation record confirmed; sentence enhanced to 2 years RI.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1926-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1926-0001)