MAULUD AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

MAULUD AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Conviction under section 218 IPC is proper as appellant made false record entries with intent to save Chauhan from legal punishment; subsequent acquittal of Chauhan does not negate the offence. Prosecution is not barred by limitation under s. 42 of Police Act, since the offence prosecuted is under IPC, not the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Maulud Ahmad; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 November 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Decision Confirming Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
False Entry by Public Servant, Limitation of Prosecution, Indian Penal Code Section 218, Police Act Sections 36 and 42
Criminal Law False Entry by Public Servant Limitation of Prosecution Indian Penal Code Section 218 Police Act Sections 36 and 42

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maulud Ahmad

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Decision Confirming Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction under s. 218 IPC can be sustained after acquittal of co-accused
  2. 2 Whether prosecution was barred by limitation under s. 42 Police Act

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction under section 218 IPC is proper as appellant made false record entries with intent to save Chauhan from legal punishment; subsequent acquittal of Chauhan does not negate the offence. Prosecution is not barred by limitation under s. 42 of Police Act, since the offence prosecuted is under IPC, not the Police Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence under s. 218 IPC affirmed
  • Appellant sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment