Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Bombay High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 1993 (3) Bom CR 482
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1992-0003Raigad, MaharashtraJudgment 26 February 1992
Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore vs The State Of Maharashtra
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Head Constable, posted at Kolad outpost under PS Roha, was entrusted with an Essential Commodities case against grocer a Kolad man and threatened to arrest, handcuff and parade him 15 km to Roha unless paid. He extracted Rs.80 on 10 September 1980 and Rs.25 of a further Rs.100 demand on 15 September 1980, and was caught in an ACB Alibag trap on 17 September 1980 accepting the balance Rs.75. The trial court convicted him under s.161 IPC and ss.5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 with one-year concurrent RI sentences. The Bombay High Court held the squeezing of money was a gross abuse of police authority, confirmed the convictions, and dismissed the appeal.
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 26 February 1992, the Bombay High Court (Coram: D.J. Moharir, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore (Head Constable).
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0002
- Case reference
- 1993 (3) Bom CR 482
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: D.J. Moharir, J.), 26 February 1992
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sudhakar Bhaskar Pore (Head Constable)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 161 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)
- “Aware that a Kolad man and his brother or family members would abhore a Kolad man being hand-cuffed and paraded in hand-cuffs all the way from Kolad to Roha, the accused took the opportunity of squeezing them to pay bribe …” (at para 30)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1 year.
- 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 26 February 1992 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.
“Aware that a Kolad man and his brother or family members would abhore a Kolad man being hand-cuffed and paraded in hand-cuffs all the way from Kolad to Roha, the accused took the opportunity of squeezing them to pay bribe …” (para 30)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
26 Feb 1992
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: 1993 (3) Bom CR 482
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.