{
 "record_id": "CW-1968-0001",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-0544",
 "alias_merged_ids": [],
 "display_title": "Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration",
 "display_title_redacted": "Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration",
 "state": "Delhi",
 "district": "South Delhi",
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": "Andrews Ganj",
 "police_station_or_unit": null,
 "court": "Supreme Court of India",
 "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Delhi Police personnel vs Delhi Administration",
 "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1966",
 "citation": "AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183",
 "judges": [
  "V. Ramaswami",
  "C.A. Vaidialingam"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "1968-05-01",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 1968,
 "incident_date": "1963-08-29",
 "incident_year": 1963,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "corruption",
 "admin_subcategory": "extortion",
 "subcategory": "extortion",
 "subcategory_display": "extortion",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld",
 "sections": [
  "PC Act 1947 s.5(2)",
  "IPC 161"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": null,
   "role": "convicted",
   "unit": "Delhi Police",
   "publish_grade": "unnamed",
   "gate_reasons": [
    "key2_gemapi:unclear"
   ],
   "ledger_role": "convicted",
   "key2": "yes",
   "key2_agy": "yes",
   "key2_claude": null,
   "key2_union": "yes",
   "key2_gemapi": "unclear",
   "key2_openrouter": "yes",
   "key2_gpt56": "yes",
   "grok": null,
   "jev_risk": 0.04,
   "jev_p_culpable": 0.98,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": "none_found",
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Police personnel, Delhi Police"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "age": null,
   "gender": "male",
   "descriptor": "Andrews Ganj man"
  },
  {
   "name": null,
   "age": null,
   "gender": "female",
   "descriptor": "Andrews Ganj woman"
  },
  {
   "name": null,
   "age": null,
   "gender": "male",
   "descriptor": "Andrews Ganj man"
  }
 ],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 3,
 "sentence_type": "imprisonment",
 "sentence_max_years": 2,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/392942/",
 "secondary_sources": [
  "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab4ee4b014971140c2a8",
  "https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1968/may/shiv-raj-singh-vs-delhi-administration-insc-137-1-may-1968-4"
 ],
 "summary": "The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. Police officer went in uniform to an Andrews Ganj man's Andrews Ganj house on 29 August 1963, accused the family of disposing of an illegitimate child, and demanded Rs.1,000 to save them from prosecution, taking Rs.90 plus a written undertaking and seizing a gold ring from an Andrews Ganj man An anti-corruption trap on 4 September 1963 recovered marked Rs.700 notes from his pocket. The Special Judge convicted him under s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and s.161 IPC, and the Punjab High Court affirmed the two-year concurrent RI sentences while setting aside the fine. The Supreme Court held that obtaining money by threatening an imaginary prosecution still constitutes illegal gratification and criminal misconduct, and dismissed the appeal.",
 "summary_verified": "Police officer went in uniform to an Andrews Ganj man's Andrews Ganj house on 29 August 1963, accused the family of disposing of an illegitimate child, and demanded Rs.1,000 to save them from prosecution, taking Rs.90 plus a written undertaking and seizing a gold ring from an Andrews Ganj man An anti-corruption trap on 4 September 1963 recovered marked Rs.700 notes from his pocket. The Special Judge convicted him under s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and s.161 IPC, and the Punjab High Court affirmed the two-year concurrent RI sentences while setting aside the fine. The Supreme Court held that obtaining money by threatening an imaginary prosecution still constitutes illegal gratification and criminal misconduct, and dismissed the appeal.",
 "court_quote": "Upon the finding of the High Court in this case it is manifest that the appellant grossly abused his position as a police officer and extorted money from an Andrews Ganj man and his wife and also a gold ring from an Andrews Ganj man",
 "court_quote_para": "n/a",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "SC affirmed 2-year RI conviction of Delhi police officer for bribe/extortion via trap recovery.",
 "verification_status": "V2",
 "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported",
 "tier_badge": "Externally reported",
 "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded",
 "tier_history": [
  "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded"
 ],
 "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"
  }
 ],
 "institutional_response": [
  {
   "date": null,
   "action_type": "Conviction",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.",
   "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation",
   "source": "AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  },
  {
   "date": "1968-05-01",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Supreme Court of India",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)",
   "source": "AIR 1968 SC 1419; (1969) 1 SCR 183",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  }
 ],
 "later_proceedings": [],
 "final_outcome_url": null,
 "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",
 "last_checked": "2026-09-19",
 "link_checked_per_url": [
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/392942/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab4ee4b014971140c2a8",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1968/may/shiv-raj-singh-vs-delhi-administration-insc-137-1-may-1968-4",
   "link_checked": null
  }
 ],
 "source_assessment": {
  "established": null,
  "basis": null
 },
 "v3_basis": null,
 "publication_basis": null,
 "reviews": [],
 "retracted": {
  "is_retracted": false
 },
 "fidelity_checked": true,
 "verified_by": [
  "chunk-33",
  "chunk-41"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "SWEXTORT-009",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}