# Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0002)

## Report card

By judgment dated 6 December 1955, the Calcutta High Court (Coram: Debabrata Mookerjee, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Constable, Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station.

- Register number: WB 51 CW 0001
- Case reference: AIR 1956 Cal 116
- Court and date: Calcutta High Court (Coram: Debabrata Mookerjee, J.), 6 December 1955
- Officer(s) at the material time: Constable, Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station
- Present service status: Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked: Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract): “Taking the entire evidence as a whole I think there is no ground for interference with the conviction of the appellant.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum: Conviction upheld. Sentence: fine.
- Present status of the proceedings: No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90300/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0002)

**Record:** CW-1955-0002 (compiler id CWC-0946); case GAP2-13-001
**Title:** Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State
**Court:** Calcutta High Court; judges: Debabrata Mookerjee
**Case number / citation:** AIR 1956 Cal 116
**Judgment:** 1955-12-06 (1955, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1954-04-25 (1954)
**Place:** Nadia, West Bengal; city town: Ranaghat; police station or unit: Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** IPC 161
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Ranaghat Government Railway Police Station (1 in record)
**Victims:** Ranaghat man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** fine
**Sentence type:** fine (fine)

The judgment of the Calcutta High Court records the following account. On 25 April 1954 constable, on duty on Ranaghat station platform, accused traveller a Ranaghat man of blackmarketing two mats, marched him toward the GRP station, demanded money and took his purse containing Rs. 5. A Ranaghat man immediately complained to nearby witnesses, identified the constable on the platform, and lodged the FIR at the GRP station. The Special Court, Nadia convicted the constable under Section 161 IPC and fined him Rs. 100. The court believed the eyewitnesses, held the ingredients of Section 161 proved, rejected the extortion-only argument and the challenge to the Special Court trial, affirmed the conviction and retained the fine. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

> Taking the entire evidence as a whole I think there is no ground for interference with the conviction of the appellant.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90300/); [casemine.com](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095ee0e4b01497112c8dde)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**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'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** Ranaghat Police Constable vs The State
**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
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Calcutta High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'AIR 1956 Cal 116', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '1955-12-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Calcutta High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'AIR 1956 Cal 116', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90300/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095ee0e4b01497112c8dde', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** GRP constable's s.161 bribery conviction affirmed; Rs.5 gratification proved by eyewitnesses.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-1955-0002](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-1955-0002)