Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Crl.A. No.163/2004
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0011Shahdara, DelhiJudgment 6 February 2009
Nand Nagri Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of PS Nand Nagri, who had arrested [name withheld], demanded Rs.4,000 from the arrestee's mother [name withheld] on 23 March 1998 at Karkardooma Courts for getting her son released on bail; she complained to the CBI and a trap on 24 March 1998 caught him accepting the bribe at the police station. The Special Judge convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 (1 year and 1.5 years RI with fines, concurrent). The High Court held demand and acceptance proved through the complainant, shadow witness and trap recovery, rejected pleas of defective sanction and false implication, and dismissed the appeal, directing surrender within a week.
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 6 February 2009 in Crl.A. No.163/2004, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Aruna Suresh, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nand Nagri.
- Register number
- DL 05 CW 0005
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No.163/2004
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Aruna Suresh, J.), 6 February 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nand Nagri
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.” (at para 49)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment; maximum substantive term of 1.5 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.
Current position
The Delhi High Court judgment dated 6 February 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.
“no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.” (para 49)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
6 Feb 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: Crl.A. No.163/2004
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.