{
 "record_id": "CW-2026-0008",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-0101",
 "alias_merged_ids": [
  "CWC-0508"
 ],
 "display_title": "Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI",
 "display_title_redacted": "Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI",
 "state": "Delhi",
 "district": "Central Delhi",
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": "Jama Masjid",
 "police_station_or_unit": "Jama Masjid Police Station",
 "court": "Delhi High Court",
 "court_as_verified": "Delhi High Court",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI",
 "case_number": "CRL.A. 733/2002",
 "citation": "2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140",
 "judges": [
  "Chandrasekharan Sudha"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2026-02-02",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2026,
 "incident_date": "1995-09-25",
 "incident_year": 1995,
 "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) r/w s.13(2)"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Sub-Inspector",
   "unit": "Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi Police",
   "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": 0.08,
   "jev_p_culpable": 0.95,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": "none_found",
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Sub-Inspector, Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi Police"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "age": null,
   "gender": null,
   "descriptor": "Jama Masjid resident"
  }
 ],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 1,
 "sentence_type": "mixed",
 "sentence_max_years": 4,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76002022026crla7332002105024-653740.pdf",
 "secondary_sources": [
  "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-police-sub-inspector-in-1995-cbi-bribery-trap-case-521774",
  "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64677415/",
  "https://www.nationpress.com/all/delhi-cops-bribery-sentence-upheld"
 ],
 "summary": "The Delhi High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 57/1996) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that while posted at Jama Masjid Police Station and investigating Crime No. 187/95, he demanded Rs. 5,000 on 25 September 1995 for not taking adverse action against the complainant, and the CBI recovered the bribe from a Head Constable acting at his instance in a trap at Tis Hazari Courts. It rejected defences based on witness contradictions, tape evidence and CBI Manual non-compliance, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (Central). The Court confirmed four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under each provision. (The judgment labels the Act as 1947, an apparent error for the 1988 Act.). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.",
 "summary_verified": "The Delhi High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 57/1996) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that while posted at Jama Masjid Police Station and investigating Crime No. 187/95, he demanded Rs. 5,000 on 25 September 1995 for not taking adverse action against the complainant, and the CBI recovered the bribe from a Head Constable acting at his instance in a trap at Tis Hazari Courts. It rejected defences based on witness contradictions, tape evidence and CBI Manual non-compliance, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (Central). The Court confirmed four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under each provision. (The judgment labels the Act as 1947, an apparent error for the 1988 Act.)",
 "court_quote": "In the light of the materials on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.",
 "court_quote_para": "39",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "Delhi HC judgment PDF verified; SI's ss.7/13 PC Act conviction and 4-yr sentence 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 Delhi High Court judgment)",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.",
   "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation",
   "source": "2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  },
  {
   "date": "2026-02-02",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Delhi High Court",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)",
   "source": "2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140",
   "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://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/76002022026crla7332002105024-653740.pdf",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-police-sub-inspector-in-1995-cbi-bribery-trap-case-521774",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64677415/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://www.nationpress.com/all/delhi-cops-bribery-sentence-upheld",
   "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-15",
  "chunk-31",
  "chunk-38",
  "chunk-r09"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "SWBRIBER-004",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}