Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1991-0003Solapur, MaharashtraJudgment 15 January 1991
Mandrup Police Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer) v. State of Maharashtra
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. PSI, Police Station Officer at Mandrup, detained a fodder-laden tractor-trolley and demanded Rs.300 from its owner to release it, saying no hafta was being paid. The owner approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, which laid a trap with marked currency on 3 October 1986 and caught the PSI accepting the money. The Court held detention unnecessary and a facade to extract money, and demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt. It dismissed the appeal, confirmed one year's RI plus fine under IPC s.161 and 18 months' RI plus fine under the PC Act 1947, and ordered surrender by 15 February 1991.
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 15 January 1991 in Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1987, the Bombay High Court (Coram: D. J. Moharir, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer), Mandrup Police Station, Solapur.
- Register number
- MH 13 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 1987 / (1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: D. J. Moharir, J.), 15 January 1991
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector of Police (Police Station Officer), Mandrup Police Station, Solapur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The commission of offence under section 161 and S. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was thus rightly held established by the trial Court and on appeal here this Court must also unhesitatingly confirm the …” (at para 25)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1.5 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.
Current position
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 15 January 1991 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.
“The commission of offence under section 161 and S. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 was thus rightly held established by the trial Court and on appeal here this Court must also unhesitatingly confirm the …” (para 25)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
15 Jan 1991
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (1991) 1 BomCR 486 : (1991) CriLJ 2085
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.