Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0006North West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 28 January 2026
Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector v. CBI
The Delhi High Court dismissed ASI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 72/99) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that while posted at Police Post Shakur Basti, he demanded Rs. 10,000 on 8 November 1995 for not harassing the complainant over complaints by the latter's brother, and received Rs. 5,000 on 9 November 1995 in a CBI trap. It held demand and acceptance proved despite partially hostile panch witnesses and the nearly 30-year delay, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (North-West). The Court confirmed two-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 7 and one-and-a-half years under Section 13, concurrently, acquitting him only of the Section 384 IPC charge. 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 28 January 2026 in CRL.A. 567/2001, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Shakur Basti, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 08 CW 0022
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 567/2001 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.), 28 January 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Post Shakur Basti, Delhi 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) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “There is no infirmity in the impugned order relating to the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him and hence, I do not find any grounds calling for an interference into the same. The appeal, sans merit, …” (at para 41-42)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2.5 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- Supreme Court of India, 10 April 2026: appeal pending. Supreme Court of India, 29 June 2026: 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
Judgment dated 28 January 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“There is no infirmity in the impugned order relating to the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him and hence, I do not find any grounds calling for an interference into the same. The appeal, sans merit, …” (para 41-42)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
28 Jan 2026
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: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Not yet re-checked.
10 Apr 2026
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 10 April 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: Unnamed personnel); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: Api Sci Gov In
Not yet re-checked.
29 Jun 2026
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 29 June 2026, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: [name withheld]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: Api Sci Gov In
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.