Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2025-0019Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 26 September 2025
Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. State (Delhi Police personnel v. State)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of ASI under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge (Complaint Case 183/2019), while acquitting him under Section 120B IPC and acquitting co-appellants Mukul Kumar and [name withheld] entirely. The Court found proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 27 August 2017 [name withheld] handed an envelope containing Rs. 50,000 with a copy of Mukul Kumar's interview letter to the complainant Additional Sessions Judge, a member of the peon-selection committee, to secure favour in the next day's interview, and the ACB seized the packet. It applied the presumption on motive and held the overt act of offering a bribe established. The upheld sentence is three years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 50,000 fine under Section 12. 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 26 September 2025 in CRL.A. 315/2021 with CRL.A. 319/2021, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Neena Bansal Krishna, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0034
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 315/2021 with CRL.A. 319/2021 / 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Neena Bansal Krishna, J.), 26 September 2025
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The conviction of [name withheld] is upheld under S.12 PC Act, while he is acquitted for the offence under S.120 B IPC.” (at para 155)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 3 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- Supreme Court of India, 27 January 2026: appeal pending. Supreme Court of India, 10 April 2026: appeal pending.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 26 September 2025. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“The conviction of [name withheld] is upheld under S.12 PC Act, while he is acquitted for the offence under S.120 B IPC.” (para 155)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
26 Sep 2025
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: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576
Not yet re-checked.
27 Jan 2026
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 27 January 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: [name withheld]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: Api Sci Gov In
Not yet re-checked.
10 Apr 2026
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 10 April 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: [name withheld]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: Api Sci Gov In
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.