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) 140
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0008Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 2 February 2026
Delhi Police Sub-Inspector v. CBI
The Delhi High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari (C.C. No. 57/1996) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court found that while posted at Jama Masjid Police Station and investigating Crime No. 187/95, he demanded Rs. 5,000 on 25 September 1995 for not taking adverse action against the complainant, and the CBI recovered the bribe from a Head Constable acting at his instance in a trap at Tis Hazari Courts. It rejected defences based on witness contradictions, tape evidence and CBI Manual non-compliance, and upheld the sanction granted by the DCP (Central). The Court confirmed four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine under each provision. (The judgment labels the Act as 1947, an apparent error for the 1988 Act.). 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 2 February 2026 in CRL.A. 733/2002, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Jama Masjid Police Station, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0035
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 733/2002 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 140
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.), 2 February 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector, Jama Masjid Police Station, 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)
- “In the light of the materials on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.” (at para 39)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 4 years.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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 2 February 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.
“In the light of the materials on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement calling for an interference by this court.” (para 39)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
2 Feb 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) 140
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.