CW-2009-0017Gurugram, HaryanaJudgment 6 January 2009

Gurgaon Police Head Constable vs State of Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the corruption conviction of Head Constable of Police Station City Gurgaon, who was caught red-handed accepting a Rs.1,000 bribe he had demanded for not implicating complainant [name withheld] in a theft case. A trap team recovered initialed phenolphthalein-smeared notes from him and his hand-wash turned pink. The Court held demand, acceptance and recovery proved, rejecting the defence of enmity and the missing shadow witness, and dismissed the appeal. It reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment only because the proceedings had dragged on for sixteen years since 1992. 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 6 January 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Head Constable, Police Station City Gurgaon.

Register number
HR 26 CW 0001
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), 6 January 2009
Officer(s) at the material time
Head Constable, Police Station City Gurgaon
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Prosecution in present case has proved, demand, acceptance and recovery. They are sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW-4 [name withheld].” (at para n/a)
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.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 6 January 2009 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.

“Prosecution in present case has proved, demand, acceptance and recovery. They are sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW-4 [name withheld].” (para n/a)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment) External · Binding

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

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996
Not yet re-checked.
6 Jan 2009

Order issued

Concluded
Punjab and Haryana High Court External · Binding

The 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: Criminal Appeal No.23-SB of 1996
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.