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.995/2002
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0025North West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 6 May 2011
Jahangir Puri Police Sub-Inspector vs CBI
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Sub-Inspector of PS Jahangir Puri demanded and accepted Rs.5,000 from complainant [name withheld] on 12 July 1995 as a reward for official favour in a bank-fraud complaint; the CBI trap the same evening recovered the tainted money from him at the police station with positive hand and pant wash. The Special Judge convicted him in December 2002 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 (2 years and 3 years SI with fines, concurrent). The High Court held demand, acceptance, recovery and motive proved, confirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal and cancelled bail bonds with surrender directions.
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 May 2011 in Crl.A. No.995/2002, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Suresh Kait, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jahangir Puri.
- Register number
- DL 08 CW 0010
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No.995/2002
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Suresh Kait, J.), 6 May 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jahangir Puri
- 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 discrepancies in the order/judgment passed by trial Judge, therefore, I confirm the same.” (at para 66)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment; maximum substantive term of 3 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 May 2011 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 discrepancies in the order/judgment passed by trial Judge, therefore, I confirm the same.” (para 66)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
6 May 2011
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.995/2002
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.