State by Karnataka Lokayukta (City Division) vs Bengaluru Urban Police Police Constable, Metal No.8419
The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, in Spl.C.C.No.153/2012 on 21 October 2016 convicted Police Constable (Metal No.8419, Cottonpet Police Station) under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs 2,00,000 (reduced to Rs 1,00,000, of which Rs 80,000 was paid) from driver [name withheld] (PW.1) to not implicate him in the credit-card case against Jayakumar, and for accepting the Rs 20,000 balance in a Lokayukta trap on 6 February 2012 at Super Talkies parking, Cottonpet, with positive phenolphthalein hand washes and FSL corroboration. On 29 October 2022 the Karnataka High Court ([name withheld], Crl.A.No.1883/2016) dismissed his appeal, holding demand proved by PW.1/PW.4, drawing the Section 20 presumption on consistent recovery evidence, and leaving the trial sentence undisturbed.
This page documents a trial-court conviction from the cited sources below. It is not a High Court or Supreme Court finding; the conviction may have been appealed. Findings are attributed to the convicting court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Report card
By judgment dated 21 October 2016, the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru convicted the Police Constable, Metal No.8419, Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru City.
- Register number
- KA 01 CW 0020
- Case reference
- Spl.C.C.No.153/2012 (appeal: Crl.A.No.1883/2016)
- Court and date
- The XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, 21 October 2016
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Police Constable, Metal No.8419, Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru City
- 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)
- “Sentence imposed by the trial court is adequate and does not require modification. In the result, appeal is dismissed.”
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction recorded by the trial court. Sentence: Not stated in appellate judgment; trial court sentence held adequate and left undisturbed
- Present status of the proceedings
- The conviction was affirmed in appeal.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru convicted the accused police personnel on 21 October 2016. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Appeal text.
Sentence & charges
Sentence: Not stated in appellate judgment; trial court sentence held adequate and left undisturbed
Sections: PC Act 1988 s.7; PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2)
Appeal status
Upheld on appeal. Appeal text