CW-2007-0021Gandhinagar, GujaratJudgment 29 March 2007

Magodi Police Police Constable vs State of Gujarat

The Gujarat High Court (C.K. Buch, J.) on 29 March 2007 partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992, confirming the corruption conviction of Police Constable by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (1 September 1992). The court found no perversity in the finding that, after a field-quarrel complaint on 1 December 1985, he demanded Rs. 1,000 from villager a Magodi man to avoid arresting his brothers and accepted Rs. 600 at the panchayat office/tea-stall on 2 December 1985, recovered in an ACB trap. Since the 1947 Act prescribed no minimum sentence and the constable faced dismissal and years of agony, it reduced the substantive sentence from six months to one month rigorous imprisonment, confirming the Rs. 700 fine. It directed him to surrender within six weeks. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 29 March 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)), the Gujarat High Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Police Constable, Dabhoda Police Station.

Register number
GJ 18 CW 0002
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))
Court and date
Gujarat High Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.), 29 March 2007
Officer(s) at the material time
Police Constable, Dabhoda Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 151 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“For short, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of conviction recorded by the ld. Trial Judge and it is rightly submitted by ld. APP Mr. Pandit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the …” (at para 27)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 0.08 years.
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.

The Gujarat High Court judgment dated 29 March 2007 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“For short, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of conviction recorded by the ld. Trial Judge and it is rightly submitted by ld. APP Mr. Pandit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as the …” (para 27)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))
Not yet re-checked.
29 Mar 2007

Order issued

Concluded
Gujarat High Court External · Binding

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1992 (Special Case No. 5 of 1987, Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural))
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.