CW-2007-0005Salem, Tamil NaduJudgment 13 April 2007

P. Veeramuthu vs State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal of Sub-Inspector P. Veeramuthu of Mecheri Police Station, Salem district, confirming his trap-case conviction for demanding and receiving Rs 500 from complainant [name withheld] on 23 January 1991 to initiate proceedings in Mecheri PS Crime No. 29 of 1991. Though the complainant turned hostile, the Court sustained the conviction on the trap witness and corroborating evidence, holding the prosecution had proved guilt under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It held the accused liable to be punished under only one provision and modified the sentence to a single term of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d), with the trial fine of Rs 1,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

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 13 April 2007 in Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem), the Madras High Court (Coram: A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.) affirmed the conviction of the P. Veeramuthu (Sub-Inspector).

Register number
TN 27 CW 0001
Case reference
Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.), 13 April 2007
Officer(s) at the material time
P. Veeramuthu (Sub-Inspector)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 on the file of Special Judge and First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The accused is convicted …” (at para 34)
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.

The Madras High Court judgment dated 13 April 2007 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.

“In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the learned Special Judge in Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 on the file of Special Judge and First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The accused is convicted …” (para 34)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

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

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

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)
Not yet re-checked.
13 Apr 2007

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

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

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: Criminal Appeal against Spl. C.C. No. 98 of 1991 (Special Judge-cum-CJM, Salem)
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.