Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 10(1974)DLT197
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1974-0003DelhiJudgment 19 April 1974
Delhi Police Constable vs The State
The Delhi High Court (P.S. Safeer, J.) on 19 April 1974 dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police constable of Police Station Kashmere Gate and upheld his conviction for demanding and accepting a Rs 60 bribe to release scooter-rickshaw DLR-5813. The court held the Anti-Corruption trap evidence proved demand and acceptance, with phenolphthalein-treated notes recovered after the appellant threw them across a wall on seeing the raiding Inspector. It held the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose against him and the defence version had no veracity. The concurrent sentences of two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 500 fine were maintained; the Supreme Court dismissed the further appeal on 15 February 1980 (AIR 1980 SC 873).
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 19 April 1974 in Crl.A. No. 186 of 1972, the Delhi High Court (Coram: P.S. Safeer, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Constable, Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No. 186 of 1972 / 10(1974)DLT197
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: P.S. Safeer, J.), 19 April 1974
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “An over-all appreciation of evidence on the record leads to the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. The defense version did not contain even an iota of veracity. There is no justification for …” (at para 5)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2 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.
Current position
The Delhi High Court judgment dated 19 April 1974 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
“An over-all appreciation of evidence on the record leads to the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the accused. The defense version did not contain even an iota of veracity. There is no justification for …” (para 5)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
19 Apr 1974
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: 10(1974)DLT197
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.