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) 428
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0018South Delhi, DelhiJudgment 27 April 2026
Delhi Police Constable v. State of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed Constable's appeal and upheld his conviction by the Special Judge, Delhi (C.C. No. 56/1998) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that on 26 July 1994, while posted at Police Station Mehrauli, he demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000 from a Mehrauli man for returning an identity card seized during checking, and was caught in an Anti-Corruption Branch trap. It held the non-examination of the untraceable complainant was not fatal since the panch witness proved demand and acceptance, drawing support from Neeraj Dutta. The Court upheld the sanction granted by the Additional DCP and confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count with fine, 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 →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 27 April 2026 in CRL.A. 862/2004, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Constable, Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 03 CW 0033
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 862/2004 / 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 428
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.), 27 April 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Police Station Mehrauli, 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 present case, once the demand and acceptance stand duly proved from the cogent testimony of PW5 coupled with the recovery of the tainted currency, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands invoked and shifts …” (at para 24)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1 year.
- 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 27 April 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 present case, once the demand and acceptance stand duly proved from the cogent testimony of PW5 coupled with the recovery of the tainted currency, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands invoked and shifts …” (para 24)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
27 Apr 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) 428
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.