Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1965-0003Jabalpur, Madhya PradeshJudgment 30 November 1965
Madhya Pradesh Police Constable and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's 8 February 1963 reversal of acquittal of police constable [name withheld], who while on leave robbed complainant [name withheld] of a gold mohar at Jabalpur in August 1958 wearing a head-constable's uniform and posing as an investigating officer. The convictions under ss.170, 342 and 392 IPC were left intact. The Court interfered only with quantum, holding an appellate court cannot impose more than the trial First Class Magistrate could have, and capped the s.392 term at two years' RI. The concurrent terms were one year's RI (s.170), six months' RI (s.342) and two years' RI (s.392). 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 30 November 1965 in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: J.R. Mudholkar, A.K. Sarkar, R.S. Bachawat, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Constable, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh Police.
- Register number
- MP 20 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963 / AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: J.R. Mudholkar, A.K. Sarkar, R.S. Bachawat, JJ.), 30 November 1965
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The High Court to which an appeal was preferred by the State Government set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant of each of these offences.” (at para n/a)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment; 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 30 November 1965 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 High Court to which an appeal was preferred by the State Government set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant of each of these offences.” (para n/a)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
30 Nov 1965
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: AIR 1966 SC 945; (1966) 2 SCR 822
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.