Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2014) 09 DEL CK 0099
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2014-0031Central, DelhiJudgment 29 September 2014
Delhi Police Constable vs State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Constable of Police Post Red Fort and confirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs.500 monthly bribe from physically handicapped pavement bookseller a Delhi resident to let him sell books near Red Fort. The ACB trap on 16 February 2001 recovered treated notes from the constable's hand with pink hand washes. The court held the panch witness's evidence, corroborated by the complainant and Raid Officer, proved voluntary acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the Section 20 burden which the appellant failed to discharge. It held the sentence of 1 year plus 1.5 years RI not excessive for a policeman, cancelling bail bonds with surrender ordered. 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 29 September 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2008, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Muralidhar, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Constable, Police Post Red Fort, PS Kotwali, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0026
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2008 / (2014) 09 DEL CK 0099
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Muralidhar, J.), 29 September 2014
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Post Red Fort, PS Kotwali, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- 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)
- “For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.” (at para 28)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; 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 29 September 2014 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.
“For all the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in convicting the Appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.” (para 28)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
29 Sep 2014
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: (2014) 09 DEL CK 0099
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.