State (ACB) v. Hingoli Police Constable (Traffic)
Per the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) judgment of 08-03-2016, Rajesh Mhaske, then a Traffic Constable with Hingoli Police posted at Hingoli Police Station (city), demanded a monthly hafta of Rs.300 from auto-rickshaw operator [name withheld] in May 2005 to let him ply on the Hingoli-Aundha road and accepted the bribe in an ACB trap laid on the complaint of 24-05-2005. The Designated Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act convicted him under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), and the High Court (N.W. Sambre, J.) held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting the appeal and cancelling his bail bonds.
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 8 March 2016, the Designated (Special) Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act (court name, case number and conviction date not stated in appellate judgment) convicted the Constable (Traffic), Hingoli Police, posted at Hingoli Police Station (city).
- Register number
- MH 38 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2008; reported in the judgment of the Bombay High Court
- Court and date
- The Designated (Special) Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act (court name, case number and conviction date not stated in appellate judgment), 8 March 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable (Traffic), Hingoli Police, posted at Hingoli Police Station (city)
- 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)
- “The case against the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in clear terms brining on record that there was demand and acceptance of bribe.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction recorded by the trial court. Sentence: 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)); concurrency not stated
- 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.
Designated (Special) Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act (court name, case number and conviction date not stated in appellate judgment) convicted the accused police personnel on 8 March 2016. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Appeal text.
Sentence & charges
Sentence: 2 years RI (s.7) + 2 years RI (s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)); concurrency not stated
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