Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0006Chandigarh, ChandigarhJudgment 25 May 2009
UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and confirmed his CBI-court conviction for demanding a bribe to release a motorcycle retained after a July 2005 road accident in Chandigarh. The demand of Rs 5,000, reduced to Rs 2,000, was proved by the shadow witness even though the complainant turned hostile, and the trap was upheld. The Court confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concurrently, holding the sentence in no manner excessive. 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 25 May 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 915-SB of 2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: K. C. Puri, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh.
- Register number
- CH 01 CW 0007
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 915-SB of 2007 / (2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: K. C. Puri, J.), 25 May 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed being without any merit.” (at para n/a)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment; 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 25 May 2009 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.
“In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed being without any merit.” (para n/a)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
25 May 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518
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.