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. 164 of 2009
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2014-0027West, DelhiJudgment 30 May 2014
Delhi Police Sub-Inspector and others vs Central Bureau of Investigation
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Delhi Police Sub-Inspector [name withheld] and confirmed his conviction for demanding and accepting an Rs.8,000 bribe from complainant [name withheld] for not arresting him in a cross-case. The CBI trap on 10 July 2001 recovered the treated notes from the officer, and both his hand washes turned pink. The court held that the collective reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 proved conscious demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, attracting the presumption under Section 20 PC Act. It rejected the defences of planted money and defective procedure and held the 3-year RI sentence not disproportionate, cancelling bail bonds with surrender ordered. 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 30 May 2014 in CRL.A. No. 164 of 2009, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Muralidhar, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, PS Mayapuri, Delhi Police (IO, FIR No. 110/01).
- Register number
- DL 04 CW 0019
- Case reference
- CRL.A. No. 164 of 2009
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Muralidhar, J.), 30 May 2014
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, PS Mayapuri, Delhi Police (IO, FIR No. 110/01)
- 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)
- “The Court is of the view that a collective reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 is sufficient to draw the conclusion regarding the conscious acceptance of the bribe amount by the Appellant. With both the elements i.e. …” (at para 33)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 3 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 Delhi High Court judgment dated 30 May 2014 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 Court is of the view that a collective reading of the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 is sufficient to draw the conclusion regarding the conscious acceptance of the bribe amount by the Appellant. With both the elements i.e. …” (para 33)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
30 May 2014
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. 164 of 2009
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.