30 May 2012
Order issued
ConcludedThe Karnataka High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2012-0031Mandya, KarnatakaJudgment 30 May 2012
State by Lokayukta Police vs Malavalli Police Sub-Inspector of Police
The Karnataka High Court (V. Jagannathan J., 30 May 2012) allowed the Lokayukta appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted Sub-Inspector of Malavalli Rural police station for bribery. The court recorded that he demanded and accepted Rs 1,000 from anticipatory-bail holder a Malavalli man to permit execution of his bail bond, caught in a Lokayukta trap on 3 December 2005. It held the demand and acceptance proved through the complainant, shadow witness, investigating officer and chemical test, calling the trial acquittal perverse and unreasonable. The court imposed 1 year RI plus Rs 5,000 fine under Section 7 and 1 year RI plus Rs 10,000 fine under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 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 30 May 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007, the Karnataka High Court (Coram: V. Jagannathan, J.) recorded the conviction of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Malavalli Rural Police Station, Mandya.
- Register number
- KA 11 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007
- Court and date
- Karnataka High Court (Coram: V. Jagannathan, J.), 30 May 2012
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Sub-Inspector of Police, Malavalli Rural Police Station, Mandya
- 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)
- “No such doubt arises in the instant case to take such a view of the matter. The finding therefore is perverse and the view taken is also unreasonable.” (at para 29)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by High Court. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 1 year.
- 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.
Current position
The Karnataka High Court judgment dated 30 May 2012 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
“No such doubt arises in the instant case to take such a view of the matter. The finding therefore is perverse and the view taken is also unreasonable.” (para 29)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
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.