{
 "record_id": "CW-2015-0005",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-0115",
 "alias_merged_ids": [
  "CWC-1426"
 ],
 "display_title": "Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI",
 "display_title_redacted": "Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI",
 "state": "Delhi",
 "district": "South West Delhi",
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": "Dabri",
 "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Dabri",
 "court": "Supreme Court of India",
 "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI",
 "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015",
 "citation": "Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)",
 "judges": [
  "T. S. Thakur",
  "Kurian Joseph",
  "R. Banumathi"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2015-04-07",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2015,
 "incident_date": "2001-01-12",
 "incident_year": 2001,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "corruption",
 "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act",
 "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act",
 "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld",
 "sections": [
  "PC Act 1988 s.7",
  "PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)",
  "PC Act 1988 s.13(2)"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Sub-Inspector",
   "unit": "P.S. Dabri",
   "role": "convicted",
   "publish_grade": "unnamed",
   "gate_reasons": [
    "key2_gemapi:unclear",
    "key2_openrouter:unclear"
   ],
   "ledger_role": "convicted",
   "key2": "yes",
   "key2_agy": "yes",
   "key2_claude": null,
   "key2_union": "yes",
   "key2_gemapi": "unclear",
   "key2_openrouter": "unclear",
   "key2_gpt56": "yes",
   "grok": null,
   "jev_risk": 0.04,
   "jev_p_culpable": 0.97,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": "none_found",
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dabri"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "age": null,
   "gender": null,
   "descriptor": "Dabri resident"
  }
 ],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 1,
 "sentence_type": "mixed",
 "sentence_max_years": 2,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/courtnic/rop/2014/33575/rop_260166.pdf",
 "secondary_sources": [
  "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158999469/",
  "https://www.livelaw.in/amp/prevention-of-corruption-act-gives-no-scope-for-reform-hence-misplaced-leniency-should-not-be-shown-supreme-court/",
  "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122227961/"
 ],
 "summary": "The Supreme Court dismissed SI 's appeal and finally upheld his conviction by the Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (CC 194/2001) and confirmed by the Delhi High Court (CRL.A. 326/2008), under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court recorded that as a Sub-Inspector he demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 for releasing the nephew of the complainant, and the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap on 13 January 2001. It analysed the penology of corruption offences, held the Act gives no scope for reform-based leniency, and observed that the keeper entrusted with law enforcement had become the poacher. The Court confirmed two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 15,000 fine on each count. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.",
 "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court dismissed SI 's appeal and finally upheld his conviction by the Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (CC 194/2001) and confirmed by the Delhi High Court (CRL.A. 326/2008), under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court recorded that as a Sub-Inspector he demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 for releasing the nephew of the complainant, and the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap on 13 January 2001. It analysed the penology of corruption offences, held the Act gives no scope for reform-based leniency, and observed that the keeper entrusted with law enforcement had become the poacher. The Court confirmed two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 15,000 fine on each count.",
 "court_quote": "As noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law enforcement. The keeper had become the poacher. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded by the trial court and confirmed in appeal.",
 "court_quote_para": "22",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "SC judgment PDF verified; SI's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and 2-yr sentence finally upheld.",
 "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": "Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  },
  {
   "date": "2015-04-07",
   "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": "Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)",
   "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://orderlaw-bphmhzeseagsd2ce.z03.azurefd.net/cms-cnr-data/supreme_court_data/pdf_files/jonew/courtnic/rop/2014/33575/rop_260166.pdf",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158999469/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/amp/prevention-of-corruption-act-gives-no-scope-for-reform-hence-misplaced-leniency-should-not-be-shown-supreme-court/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122227961/",
   "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-28",
  "chunk-38"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "DELHI-024",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}