Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2008-0029Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, MaharashtraJudgment 17 November 2008
Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Police Head Constable demanded Rs.500 from complainant [name withheld] to desist from arresting two men in a land-dispute inquiry at Waluj, Aurangabad, taking Rs.100 on 27.04.1991 and the Rs.400 balance in an ACB trap at Rajasthan Upahargriha on 30.04.1991. The Special Judge, Aurangabad convicted him under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 (1 year RI + Rs.300 fine on each count). The court held sanction valid, the panch evidence credible, and demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted notes proved, dismissing the appeal and directing surrender on 08.12.2008.
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 17 November 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996, the Bombay High Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Police Head Constable, Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad.
- Register number
- MH 20 CW 0003
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: K.U. Chandiwal, J.), 17 November 2008
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Head Constable, Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Thus, the crystallisation of the evidence establishes that there was motive, demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes.” (at para 18)
- 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 Bombay High Court judgment dated 17 November 2008 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.
“Thus, the crystallisation of the evidence establishes that there was motive, demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes.” (para 18)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
17 Nov 2008
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay 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. 594 of 1996
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.