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. 461/2003
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2013-0038West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 27 November 2013
Delhi Police Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
The Delhi High Court (Siddharth Mridul, J.) on 27 November 2013 dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector against his 2003 conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs. 5,000 bribe from property dealer a New Delhi man to dispose of a complaint against him. The court found that a CBI trap laid on 26 July 1995 caught the appellant arriving in a Sub-Inspector's uniform and that the tainted money was recovered from his co-accused. It held demand and acceptance proved, raised the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act which the appellant failed to rebut, and sustained the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine. The court cancelled his bail bond and ordered him to be taken into custody forthwith. 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 27 November 2013 in Crl.A. No. 461/2003, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Siddharth Mridul, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 04 CW 0016
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No. 461/2003
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Siddharth Mridul, J.), 27 November 2013
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; 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)
- “Accordingly, the appellant is found guilty under Section 120 IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant is also found guilty and convicted for the substantive offences under Sections 7 …” (at para 44)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 4 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 27 November 2013 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.
“Accordingly, the appellant is found guilty under Section 120 IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant is also found guilty and convicted for the substantive offences under Sections 7 …” (para 44)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
27 Nov 2013
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. 461/2003
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.