# Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0029)

## 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352580/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0029)

**Record:** CW-2008-0029 (compiler id CWC-1138); case GAP3-21-001
**Title:** Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra
**Court:** Bombay High Court; bench: Aurangabad; judges: K.U. Chandiwal
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996
**Judgment:** 2008-11-17 (2008, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1991-04-30 (1991)
**Place:** Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra (district at time: Aurangabad); city town: Aurangabad; police station or unit: Waluj Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Police Head Constable, Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad (1 in record)
**Victims:** Aurangabad resident (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 1 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

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.

> Thus, the crystallisation of the evidence establishes that there was motive, demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted notes.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352580/)
**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:** 18
**display title redacted:** Aurangabad Police Police Head Constable and others vs The State of Maharashtra
**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 Bombay High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2008-11-17', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Bombay High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1996', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/352580/', '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:** HC confirmed PHC's PC Act conviction; motive, demand, acceptance and recovery proved.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2008-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2008-0029)