Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: (2009) 6 SCC 462
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0004Erode, Tamil NaduJudgment 4 May 2009
Sathyamangalam Police Sub-Inspector v. State by Public Prosecutor
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction of Sub-Inspector Subbu Singh, who had demanded Rs.500 through his friend [name withheld] from the family of an assault victim before allowing hospital treatment, accepting Rs.100. The Court held that an experienced police officer's unexplained taking of money, coupled with his failure to act against the alleged bribe-giver, proved guilt beyond doubt. It left the minimum sentences of six months (Section 7) and one year's rigorous imprisonment (Section 13) undisturbed and ordered surrender to custody. The co-accused [name withheld]'s acquittal was not interfered with. 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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 4 May 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2002, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain, M.K. Sharma, JJ.) affirmed the conviction of 2 police personnel, namely: Subbu Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel.
- Register number
- TN 28 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2002 / (2009) 6 SCC 462
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: Arijit Pasayat, D.K. Jain, M.K. Sharma, JJ.), 4 May 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Subbu Singh (Sub-Inspector); Police personnel
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. He had not explained as to why he took up the money in his examination under Section 313 of the Code.” (at para 12)
- 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 4 May 2009 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 accused was a police officer who knew the consequences of the bribe. He had not explained as to why he took up the money in his examination under Section 313 of the Code.” (para 12)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
4 May 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.
Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: (2009) 6 SCC 462
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.