Date not established
Conviction
ConcludedThe trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: CRL.A. 1063/2006
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0020Delhi, DelhiJudgment 5 May 2026
Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs C.B.I.
The Delhi High Court dismissed ex-ASI [name withheld]'s appeal and upheld his CBI-court conviction for false passport verification reports. Posted in the Special Branch in 1993 and tasked with detailed police verification of two applicants' personal particular forms, he prepared and submitted false reports certifying fictitious addresses as genuine, pursuant to which passports were issued on forged ration cards. Relying on residents and a postman who testified that no such persons lived at the addresses and no verification was conducted there, the Court held a false report had plainly been given and conspiracy inferable. It sustained one year's RI (Section 120-B) and two years' RI (Section 13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2) PC Act) with fines, 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 5 May 2026 in CRL.A. 1063/2006, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Special Branch.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0032
- Case reference
- CRL.A. 1063/2006
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.), 5 May 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Assistant Sub-Inspector, Special Branch
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “Therefore, it is apparent that a false report had been given by A1 on the basis of which the passport was issued. Therefore, the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act is clearly made out.” (at para 22)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2 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 5 May 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.
“Therefore, it is apparent that a false report had been given by A1 on the basis of which the passport was issued. Therefore, the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act is clearly made out.” (para 22)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
5 May 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: CRL.A. 1063/2006
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.