State (ACB) v. Seminary Hills Police Head Constable and others
The Special Court (PC Act), Nagpur, in Special Criminal Case No.19/1994 on 29 March 2004 convicted Head Constable (A-1) and Constable (A-2) of the Seminary Hills chowky (PS Sadar) for demanding Rs.5,000 (negotiated to Rs.500) from complainant [name withheld] on 15 June 1993 to hush up his wife's harassment complaint, detaining him four hours and threatening jail, caught in an ACB Nagpur trap on 19 June 1993 (A-1 demanded, A-2 accepted), sentencing each to 1 year's RI under PC Act s.13 plus 6 months under ss.7/12. On 22 April 2024 Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke (Nagpur Bench, Crl Appeal No.239/2004, 2024:BHC-NAG:4570, pursued by both officers' legal heirs after their deaths) dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.
This page documents a trial-court conviction from the cited sources below. It is not a High Court or Supreme Court finding; the conviction may have been appealed. Findings are attributed to the convicting court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Report card
By judgment dated 29 March 2004, the Special Judge, Aurangabad convicted 2 police personnel, namely: Head Constable, Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur; Police Constable (Head Constable by appeal time), Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur.
- Register number
- MH 20 CW 0015
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2004; reported in the judgment of the Bombay High Court
- Court and date
- The Special Judge, Aurangabad, 29 March 2004
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Head Constable, Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur; Police Constable (Head Constable by appeal time), Seminary Hills Police Chowky, Police Station Sadar, Nagpur
- 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)
- “To sum up, case of prosecution has been correctly appreciated by the trial Judge. No case being made out on merits, there is no reason to interfere.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction recorded by the trial court. Sentence: Each: 6 mo RI + Rs.500 (ss.7/12); 1 yr RI + Rs.1,000 (s.13)
- Present status of the proceedings
- The conviction was affirmed in appeal.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Special Judge, Aurangabad convicted the accused police personnel on 29 March 2004. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Appeal text.
Sentence & charges
Sentence: Each: 6 mo RI + Rs.500 (ss.7/12); 1 yr RI + Rs.1,000 (s.13)
Sections: PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
Appeal status
Upheld on appeal. Appeal text