CW-2024-0007Pudukkottai, Tamil NaduJudgment 25 April 2024

The State represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras vs R. Ravichandran

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed an appeal against acquittal filed by the State, setting aside the trial court's order and convicting Special Sub-Inspector of Police R. Ravichandran under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The officer had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs 10,000 as monthly mamool from a lorry operator whose vehicles were repeatedly intercepted and targeted by Viralimalai police. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the trap evidence and the testimony of the shadow witness and complainant. The High Court reversed the acquittal, found the officer guilty, and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine of Rs 5,000 on each count, ordered to run concurrently. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 25 April 2024 in Crl.A.(MD) No. 174 of 2017, the Madras High Court (Coram: K.K. Ramakrishnan, J., J.) recorded the conviction of the R. Ravichandran (Special Sub-Inspector of Police).

Register number
TN 55 CW 0001
Case reference
Crl.A.(MD) No. 174 of 2017
Court and date
Madras High Court (Coram: K.K. Ramakrishnan, J., J.), 25 April 2024
Officer(s) at the material time
R. Ravichandran (Special 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)
“Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2013 dated 13.04.2016 and convicting the accused for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w …” (at para 55)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction entered by High Court. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1.0 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.

The Madras High Court judgment dated 25 April 2024 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2013 dated 13.04.2016 and convicting the accused for the offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w …” (para 55)

Institutional response

1
25 Apr 2024

Order issued

Concluded
Madras High Court External · Binding

The Madras High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Crl.A.(MD) No. 174 of 2017
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.