Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Crl.A. No. 113/2003
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2011-0028North East Delhi, DelhiJudgment 21 April 2011
Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State (CBI)
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. ASI, investigating officer of FIR No. 645/1996, demanded a Rs 2,000 bribe from the accused in that case and was caught in a CBI trap laid on the complainant's complaint of 21 September 1996. The Special Judge, Tis Hazari convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act in February 2003. The Delhi High Court held the trap evidence, including treated-note recovery and hand wash, proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. It sustained the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the appellant taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
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 21 April 2011 in Crl.A. No. 113/2003, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Rajiv Shakdher, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Gokul Puri.
- Register number
- DL 05 CW 0011
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No. 113/2003
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Rajiv Shakdher, J.), 21 April 2011
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police, Police Station Gokul Puri
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “I am of the view that the case of the prosecution against the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is sustained.” (at para 33)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment.
- 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 21 April 2011 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.
“I am of the view that the case of the prosecution against the Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is sustained.” (para 33)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
21 Apr 2011
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: Crl.A. No. 113/2003
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.