# M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0001)

## Report card

By judgment dated 6 January 2020 in Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015, the Madras High Court (Coram: M. Nirmal Kumar, J., J.) affirmed the conviction of the M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of Police).

- Register number: TN 57 CW 0015
- Case reference: Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
- Court and date: Madras High Court (Coram: M. Nirmal Kumar, J., J.), 6 January 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time: M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of 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) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract): “the demand, acceptance and recovery had been clearly proved by the prosecution. The trial Court on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence has given a detailed finding, which need not be interfered with.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum: Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2.0 years.
- Present status of the proceedings: Supreme Court of India, 13 April 2022: appeal pending.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/); [Supreme Court of India order](https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010177202020?order=1dmrf); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0001)

**Record:** CW-2020-0001 (compiler id CWC-0367); case TAMILN-003
**Title:** M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment
**Court:** Madras High Court; bench: Madurai; judges: M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
**Case number / citation:** Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
**Judgment:** 2020-01-06 (2020, day precision)
**Incident date:** 2003-01-29 (2003)
**Place:** Madurai, Tamil Nadu; city town: Thirumangalam; police station or unit: Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station; force: state_police
**Category:** Bribery & extortion
**Sub-category:** bribery pc act
**Outcome:** Conviction upheld (conviction_upheld)
**Sections:** PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d); PC Act 1988 s.13(2)
**Officers (gated display forms):** M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of Police) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Thirumangalam woman (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** mixed; max 2.0 yrs
**Sentence type:** mixed (mixed)

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Sub-Inspector M. Seenivasan of Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station and confirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 2,000 from complainant \[name withheld\] to delete her husband's name from a final report, leading to a trap by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing where tainted currency notes were recovered and tested positive. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar held that the prosecution cogently proved demand, acceptance, and recovery through the evidence of eyewitnesses, the trap laying officer, and the independent shadow witness. The High Court affirmed the trial court's sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and directed that the officer be secured to undergo the remaining sentence.

> the demand, acceptance and recovery had been clearly proved by the prosecution. The trial Court on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence has given a detailed finding, which need not be interfered with.

**Sources (1):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** corruption
**admin subcategory:** bribery_pc_act
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 12
**display title redacted:** M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'wrong_facts', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': None, 'action_type': 'Conviction', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Trial court (as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment)', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2020-01-06', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Madras High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)', 'source': 'Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}; {'date': '2022-04-13', 'action_type': 'Appeal pending', 'status': 'Pending', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': "As of 13 April 2022, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: M. Seenivasan); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.", 'disposition': 'Later proceeding · Appeal pending', 'source': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010177202020?order=1dmrf', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**later proceedings:** {'court': 'Supreme Court of India', 'date': '2022-04-13', 'url': 'https://order.law/api/pdf/SCIN010177202020?order=1dmrf', 'outcome': 'pending_appeal'}
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179653898/', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** bribery pc act
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** High Court confirmed conviction of Sub-Inspector under PC Act for demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 bribe in DVAC trap.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Conviction upheld.

[Open CW-2020-0001](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2020-0001)