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: AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1979-0001Ambala, HaryanaJudgment 14 February 1979
Haryana Police Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan) vs State of Haryana
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Sub-Inspector, in charge of a police station investigating a Bank of Patiala godown theft reported by an Ambala man, who demanded Rs 3,000 to help the complainant. Haryana Vigilance trapped him at Ambala on 19 December 1969, recovering the marked currency notes with the hand-wash turning red. The Court held the independent witnesses unshaken and refused leniency, upholding one year's RI with a Rs 2,000 fine under Section 5(2) of the 1947 PC Act and one year's RI under Section 161 IPC, concurrent. (Posting stated as PS Solan; trap and prosecution at Ambala, Haryana.). 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 14 February 1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1974, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. D. Koshal, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan), Haryana Police.
- Register number
- HR 01 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1974 / AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. D. Koshal, JJ.), 14 February 1979
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector (in charge of Police Station, Solan), Haryana Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This fact, however, has been proved by the evidence of independent witnesses and accepted by two courts and we find ourselves unable to differ with the view taken by them. Moreover, the appellant was clever Police Officer and wanted to …” (at para 3)
- 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 14 February 1979 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.
“This fact, however, has been proved by the evidence of independent witnesses and accepted by two courts and we find ourselves unable to differ with the view taken by them. Moreover, the appellant was clever Police Officer and wanted to …” (para 3)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
14 Feb 1979
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: AIR 1979 SC 1820; (1980) 1 SCC 124
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.