Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1976-0001Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 8 January 1976
Delhi Police Head Constable v. State (Delhi Administration)
The Supreme Court dismissed Criminal Appeal 209 of 1971 and upheld the conviction of Head Constable of Lahori Gate police station under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, already affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Court found complainant [name withheld], an unlicensed hawker, complained on 7 April 1969 that the Head Constable demanded Rs 10 for not challaning his brother and Rs 50 for future immunity, and an Anti-Corruption trap caught him with the money passing into his pocket. It held trap witnesses are neither accomplices nor interested per se and rejected the charge-prejudice and planting defences. The 1-year RI sentences with Rs 100 fine were maintained and surrender directed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 8 January 1976 in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1971, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: P. K. Goswami, P. N. Shingal, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Head Constable, Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1971 / (1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: P. K. Goswami, P. N. Shingal, JJ.), 8 January 1976
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, Lahori Gate Police Station, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The High Court and the trial court cannot, therefore, be said to have made any gross error of law in appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the charges against the accused were fully established.” (at para n/a)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1 year.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 8 January 1976 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“The High Court and the trial court cannot, therefore, be said to have made any gross error of law in appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion that the charges against the accused were fully established.” (para n/a)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
8 Jan 1976
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (1976) 1 SCC 644; AIR 1976 SC 449
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.