CBI v. Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer)
The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted ASI in CC 26/97 (RC 72(A)/96) for demanding Rs 2,000 from complainant [name withheld] - warning it be paid by 5 pm on 21.09.1996 failing which he would face serious trouble in FIR 645/1996 (ss.308/323/34 IPC, PS Gokul Puri) which [name withheld] was investigating - catching him in a CBI ACB trap the same day with the tainted Rs 2,000 recovered from his right pant pocket, holding him guilty on 11.02.2003 under sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. He was sentenced on 13.02.2003. On 21.04.2011 Justice Rajiv Shakdher dismissed his appeal (CRL.A. 113/2003, (2011) 179 DLT 664), sustaining the conviction and sentence and ordering him taken into custody; he was dismissed from service on 18.08.2011. (The CAT's 09.08.2016 order misprints the trial year as 2013; the High Court confirms 2003.)
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 11 February 2003, the Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicted the Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer), Delhi Police (IO of FIR 645/1996, PS Gokul Puri).
- Register number
- DL 05 CW 0002
- Case reference
- CC No.26/97; RC No.72(A)/96/CBI/ACB/New Delhi; CRL.A. 113/2003 (Delhi High Court)
- Court and date
- The Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, 11 February 2003
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector (Investigating Officer), Delhi Police (IO of FIR 645/1996, PS Gokul Puri)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- 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)
- “Resultantly, the impugned judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is sustained. The appeal is thus dismissed.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction recorded by the trial court. Sentence: Quantum not stated in appellate judgment or CAT order (sentence order 13.02.2003; sustained on appeal)
- 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.
Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicted the accused police personnel on 11 February 2003. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Appeal text.
Sentence & charges
Sentence: Quantum not stated in appellate judgment or CAT order (sentence order 13.02.2003; sustained on appeal)
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