CW-1965-0002Ahmedabad, GujaratJudgment 10 September 1965

Ahmedabad Police Police Sub-Inspector and others vs State of Gujarat

PSI and his writer constable of Navrangpura Police Station were convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad in a February 1963 anti-corruption trap case for demanding and accepting a bribe, and sentenced to 2.5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000 fine each. The High Court rejected their pleas on sanction, Bombay Police Act protection, and the credibility of trap witnesses, holding demand and acceptance proved. The court dismissed the appeals, holding the sentences adequate rather than harsh, and directed surrender to bail. The incident month (February 1963) is as stated in the judgment; HC appeal number is not stated in the available text.

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 10 September 1965, the Gujarat High Court (Coram: Akbar S. Sarela, J.) affirmed the conviction of 2 police personnel, namely: Police Sub-Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad; Writer Constable, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad.

Register number
GJ 01 CW 0002
Case reference
(1965)6 GLR 958
Court and date
Gujarat High Court (Coram: Akbar S. Sarela, J.), 10 September 1965
Officer(s) at the material time
Police Sub-Inspector, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad; Writer Constable, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Finding of the Court (extract)
“If Police officers who are expected to enforce the laws of the land themselves commit breaches of those laws and in addition take bribes for commission of those breaches they must be adequately punished.” (at para 35)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2.5 years.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Gujarat High Court judgment dated 10 September 1965 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“If Police officers who are expected to enforce the laws of the land themselves commit breaches of those laws and in addition take bribes for commission of those breaches they must be adequately punished.” (para 35)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Gujarat High Court judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (1965)6 GLR 958
Not yet re-checked.
10 Sep 1965

Order issued

Concluded
Gujarat High Court External · Binding

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (1965)6 GLR 958
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.