13 Apr 2023
Order issued
ConcludedThe Madras High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2014
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2023-0008Madurai, Tamil NaduJudgment 13 April 2023
State v. Tamil Nadu Police Assistant Commissioner of Police
The Madras High Court allowed the State's appeal under Section 378 CrPC and set aside the 20 February 2014 acquittal by the Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chennai (C.C. 82/2011), convicting Assistant Commissioner of Police [name withheld] under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that while serving as ACP, Madurai, he held assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 2000, with acquired wealth of about Rs. 24.9 lakh against likely savings of about Rs. 13.5 lakh. It held the trial court had proceeded on a wrong presumption and that the unexplained excessive assets brought his misconduct within Section 13(1)(e). The accused was directed to appear on 19 April 2023 for hearing on sentence; the sentence order is not on record. 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 13 April 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2014, the Madras High Court (Coram: G. Jayachandran, J.) recorded the conviction of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tamil Nadu Police (ACP Madurai).
- Register number
- TN 57 CW 0021
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2014
- Court and date
- Madras High Court (Coram: G. Jayachandran, J.), 13 April 2023
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tamil Nadu Police (ACP Madurai)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.82 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.02 of 2008) dated 20.02.2014, is set aside. The accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 13(2) r/w …” (at para 42)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by High Court.
- 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 13 April 2023 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.
“Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.82 of 2011 (Old C.C.No.02 of 2008) dated 20.02.2014, is set aside. The accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 13(2) r/w …” (para 42)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
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.