Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2019-0029Perambalur, Tamil NaduJudgment 25 April 2019
Perambalur Police personnel vs State by Inspector of Police, DVAC Trichy
The Madras High Court confirmed the conviction of [name withheld], a police officer who received criminal complaints and issued CSR receipts, for demanding and accepting a Rs.1,000 bribe plus a plastic chair and whisky bottles to act on complainant [name withheld]'s petitions. The court held demand and acceptance proved beyond reasonable doubt through the complainant, the trap witness, the DVAC Trap Laying Officer and the positive phenolphthalein tests on the tainted cash, purse and hands, and held sanction valid. It confirmed the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reducing only the sentence from five years to one year and six months rigorous imprisonment with the Rs.5,000 fine maintained, noting he stood dismissed from service. The appeal was allowed in part to that limited extent.
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 25 April 2019 in Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005, the Madras High Court (Coram: A. D. Jagadish Chandira, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Police personnel.
- Register number
- TN 46 CW 0002
- Case reference
- Crl.A. No.1021 of 2005
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: A. D. Jagadish Chandira, J.), 25 April 2019
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police personnel
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- 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 conviction made by the Trial Court against the Appellant/ accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall stand confirmed.” (at para 42)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1.5 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 Madras High Court judgment dated 25 April 2019 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 conviction made by the Trial Court against the Appellant/ accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall stand confirmed.” (para 42)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
25 Apr 2019
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras 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.1021 of 2005
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.