Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madras High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2020-0001Madurai, Tamil NaduJudgment 6 January 2020
M. Seenivasan vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai Detachment
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of Sub-Inspector M. Seenivasan of Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station and confirmed his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 2,000 from complainant [name withheld] to delete her husband's name from a final report, leading to a trap by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing where tainted currency notes were recovered and tested positive. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar held that the prosecution cogently proved demand, acceptance, and recovery through the evidence of eyewitnesses, the trap laying officer, and the independent shadow witness. The High Court affirmed the trial court's sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and directed that the officer be secured to undergo 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 6 January 2020 in Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015, the Madras High Court (Coram: M. Nirmal Kumar, J., J.) affirmed the conviction of the M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of Police).
- Register number
- TN 57 CW 0015
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: M. Nirmal Kumar, J., J.), 6 January 2020
- Officer(s) at the material time
- M. Seenivasan (Sub-Inspector of Police)
- 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)
- “the demand, acceptance and recovery had been clearly proved by the prosecution. The trial Court on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence has given a detailed finding, which need not be interfered with.” (at para 12)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2.0 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- Supreme Court of India, 13 April 2022: appeal pending.
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 6 January 2020 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 demand, acceptance and recovery had been clearly proved by the prosecution. The trial Court on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence has given a detailed finding, which need not be interfered with.” (para 12)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
6 Jan 2020
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: Criminal Appeal(MD) No. 129 of 2015
Not yet re-checked.
13 Apr 2022
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 13 April 2022, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: M. Seenivasan); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: Order Law
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.