CW-2015-0005South West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 7 April 2015

Dabri Police Sub-Inspector v. State (NCT of Delhi), CBI

The Supreme Court dismissed SI 's appeal and finally upheld his conviction by the Special Judge (CBI), Delhi (CC 194/2001) and confirmed by the Delhi High Court (CRL.A. 326/2008), under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court recorded that as a Sub-Inspector he demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000 for releasing the nephew of the complainant, and the CBI Anti-Corruption Branch laid a trap on 13 January 2001. It analysed the penology of corruption offences, held the Act gives no scope for reform-based leniency, and observed that the keeper entrusted with law enforcement had become the poacher. The Court confirmed two years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 15,000 fine on each count. 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 7 April 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: T. S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dabri.

Register number
DL 09 CW 0013
Case reference
Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 / Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: T. S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, JJ.), 7 April 2015
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector, P.S. Dabri
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Finding of the Court (extract)
“As noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law enforcement. The keeper had become the poacher. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason …” (at para 22)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2 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.

The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 7 April 2015 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.

“As noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment itself, the appellant was the sub-inspector of police entrusted with the task of law enforcement. The keeper had become the poacher. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason …” (para 22)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)
Not yet re-checked.
7 Apr 2015

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 (SLP(Crl) 8919/2014)
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.