{"id":26068,"date":"2009-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009"},"modified":"2014-09-22T18:47:04","modified_gmt":"2014-09-22T13:17:04","slug":"state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: L.Narayana Swamy<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009\nBEFORE 1'\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SwAMYj_~   ;_. A' \n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511_,I.:2.\u00a2\u00a7;fc3\u00bb3EwA.T.::' _ 3\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nAND:\n\nSTATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR,--- _ \nB.O.I., LOKAYUKTHA,   '-\nEELLARY.\n\n.' \" \u00ab ;.V._AAA]?i'PELLANT\n(EY SR1: M.I3. GUN-D'AwA_D?E;.   _\n\n;'_v-LP. JAGADISH,   _\nS\/O'. 4PUTTAjNAII<,,'  \nAGE. 41 YEARS, ' \nOCCE..1NSPECT*QR' POP\n\n.   CHILD DEVELOPMENT\n~  PROJECT OFFICER,\n\n'*,VKURUO0D.\n\nEELLARY RURAL,\n\n RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
V  K.L. PATIL, ADV.)<\/p>\n
SPL.\n<\/p>\n
“THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) 823 (3)<\/p>\n
 CR..P.C.”‘BY THE STATE P.P. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
\n _E’?.I_LE_\u00ab AN APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.
\n“:29\/07\/2002 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, BELLARY IN<\/p>\n
CASE NO. 5\/98, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT\u00bb<\/p>\n
 “ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U \/SECS. 7,<\/p>\n
T.\n<\/p>\n
13(1) (D) AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUP’I__’EON
\nACT, 1988. r <\/p>\n
THIS CRL.A IS COMING ON FOR HEARING  _<\/p>\n
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is \ufb01led against.’ theiorder paiss.ed,_in  <\/p>\n
Case No. 5\/1998 on the  Jiudge_,::Be:Ilary, dt.
\n29\/07\/2002, whereinvthie.accusedi’gotiacquitted, against
\nwhich the prosecution   \\_
\n25″  viprosecution is that, on
\n27 \/ 02:’,’Vv_199′-0?;   has appeared at Bellary
\nKarnatal{apiiLoka}tuistai:_iPolice.–station and complained that<\/p>\n
shepghasappliedi ‘for loan” under “Mane Belaku” about four<\/p>\n
  andumsame was recommended by the Child<\/p>\n
A  Deveplovpimeintf;Project Officer. On inquiry, Assistant Directors<\/p>\n
()i”i3._ce of’ and Child Development in Bellary, it was<\/p>\n
 xdeposed: that loan of Rs. 10,000 \/ — was sanctioned and the<\/p>\n
   has taken charge of the subsidy amount of<\/p>\n
_fas.2,5o0\/- on 31\/01\/1997 and he is keeping with it. When<\/p>\n
‘K<\/p>\n
officials entered and caught the accused and he was Charged<\/p>\n
under the sections referred above.\n<\/p>\n
3. On the basis of the same, a charge framed. <\/p>\n
against the accused and the accused  <\/p>\n
is suggested for triai, accordingly theicase wasfcnvtrustedifor”ti<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n
4. On behalf of the:proseciiiti.oin,i.’i’iiivitnesses have been
\nexamined as P.W.I to :’?~;  the compiainant,
\nP.W.2 is thg    recovery panch.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.4 is   persons in whose residence
\nhe was [official of the accused office.<\/p>\n
P.W.6 isthe tehghie.-gr, gt-h\u00a7’g;tve the sketch and P.W.7 is the<\/p>\n
_ Investigating V-Officer ‘land on behalf of the prosecution,<\/p>\n
ii  -. .;1o”c:Liirrier1tsVi’h.ave  ‘marked as Ex.P–1 to 11. Ex.P–1 is the<\/p>\n
    is the administration panchanama. P.W.3<\/p>\n
is the traoipanchanama. Ex.P~-it is the statement of P.W.2.<\/p>\n
 Ex.P–5.vi__s? the statement of P.W.3. Ex.P–6 is the sketch and<\/p>\n
 is the FIR and Ex.P–l0 is FSL Report. Ex.P–8 is the<\/p>\n
V’  explanation of accused. On behaif of the accused, none was<\/p>\n
T<\/p>\n
examined and documents have not been marked aI1d–.__the<\/p>\n
prosecution has marked the properties as M.O. NO1:l:1″<\/p>\n
M.O. No. 1 is cash of Rs.200\/–, M0. N0. 2 is-‘thev ‘<\/p>\n
M0. N0. 3 to 6 are quarter bottles- After <\/p>\n
trial, the Trial Court has acquitted th_e'”acc’us_’ed,’_ <\/p>\n
which the appeal is preferred. 2<\/p>\n
5. Learned counse1~~..for  submitted that
\nthere is demand on the part’  Who demanded
\nP.W.I of Rs.50\u00a7),=’ –th.e:fsubsidy cheque to
\nthe Bank.  offegi…iggiiad\ufb01acceptance on behalf of the
\naccused\u00bb “””    it  the P.W.1. The
\naccused}’.compiai:narit:..: been examined as P.W.1 she<\/p>\n
supported theiproslecutivornand in her chief–examination she<\/p>\n
.~,&_hasv_\u00bbd-igposedv that”‘”\u00abaccused asked me to come on the next<\/p>\n
‘morninog..qtov receive the cheque, accused asked me to<\/p>\n
bring.mone;}}”q:tolA’oVbtain the cheque, I expressed my inability to<\/p>\n
–V pay  amount, I told him that after encashment of cheque<\/p>\n
l:ramount, ill will pay, then accused told me to bring money as<\/p>\n
.’ Aj_.me.ich”as possible. I took R3200\/– to pay the accused”.<\/p>\n
6. Again in the next para, she has deposed that, I took<\/p>\n
the money and Lokayuktha police briefed to hand over the<\/p>\n
same to the person, who demanded the money”.<\/p>\n
cross–examination she has stated that “it is true  ‘<\/p>\n
27\/02\/1997 I visited the Lokayu1_{.tha_4Of\ufb01ceiV’ari\u00a7;1iii;1f_ther._bV<\/p>\n
deposed that the accused has demar:.ded_”th’e bri_b’e Br<\/p>\n
Rs.200\/- and when a demanidk\u00e9vas   r L’<\/p>\n
P.W.2 Indrarnrna was aiso  and  has
\nreceived the bribe an1ouAn..tV:i.” ‘went outside and
\ngave pre–determined_signalitoftrap\u00e9ithe\ufb01party; ‘:.Again she has
\ndeposed that’_f’it   was given by
\nway of cane chair and same
\nwas colieicted   poiice and thereafter they<\/p>\n
have seized thcarnount under a panchanama. The learned<\/p>\n
V. \u00b0cou”nsCe1 Yreiying onithie\u00e9ievidence of P.W.2, who is a shadow<\/p>\n
witness  in her cross-examination deposed that,<\/p>\n
“Lok_aiyuktha’:*.VpoIice washed the hand of the accused with<\/p>\n
 Hsodiuni carbonate and it turned pink and the same was<\/p>\n
  ‘if;_o1I:\u00a2c’t_ed.” On the basis of the deposition of P.W.1 and 2 the<\/p>\n
  learned counsel submitted that, though the prosecution has<\/p>\n
proved the case of the offence punishable Under sections<\/p>\n
referred above, the Court has disbelieved the <\/p>\n
rejected the case of the prosecution. The learnedvcolu-n’sel_”‘_’e it<\/p>\n
also referred the deposition of P.W.3., >w}1o&is–‘_an <\/p>\n
witness working as a S.D.A. in State”EXc_ise’l <\/p>\n
has deposed that he Went along    police
\njeep and after the completion Vof.ll{vorl{‘V..l\\Aleelarnrn_a gave pres
\ndetermined signal to  submitted on
\nbehalf of the prosecution.thatthe”csaSel\ufb01vvas:p.roved beyond all
\nreasonable    rejected by the
\nCourt belppgwg  this appeal by setting
\naside the  i:*:yl”‘th_e–Court below and convict the
\nperson referred  ” if<\/p>\n
 ‘{‘he ullearneidl counsel for the respondent submitted<\/p>\n
ithat;”=the\u00a5’appeal is reduired to be dismissed for the reason<\/p>\n
l’that,a. titef\u00bb-prosecution did not satisfy the requirement of<\/p>\n
Section   Prevention of Corruption Act. In order to<\/p>\n
 l’c,onstit1,ite_A’3~an offence there shall be an acceptance and<\/p>\n
   In the instant case, both the ingredients have not<\/p>\n
  satis\ufb01ed by the parties. P.W.1, who is the complainant<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
has also turned hostile. In her chief–exarnination though<\/p>\n
she stated that the accused has demanded the money and<\/p>\n
asked her to come next day morning to receive the’chequ–e,<\/p>\n
but in her cross\u00bb-exarnination she further states–*that; ~<\/p>\n
next day she went to the residence o\ufb01 the accused:’aloing’with <\/p>\n
another lady i.e., P.W.2, the accused sitting-.i:n thie’-haiii.j,_:<\/p>\n
accused saw me and the anothe-\u00abrg ladv’-and invitetfl; memtcg the <\/p>\n
hall. Accused told me to collecti”th:e .cheque.\u00abi_}’lccLised gave
\nthe cheque to me, then LOitayftil.{itl:a’pit5ll\u00a2C came there”.<\/p>\n
8. But even in the”–chie’f~eexarnin.ation P.W.1 never<\/p>\n
stated that’ iin;”1%espief%*:t* ofthc dethahd of bribe amount by the
\ncomplainant. ‘ Eeeej  cross\u00bb-examination she has<\/p>\n
deposed thatitheg amcuintivvhich was given to the accused<\/p>\n
– V. g_ was ‘tihroivvngvgon the cane chair and thereafter it was collected<\/p>\n
 ‘bjf’*the–vI,o}tet3;ij1i:.tha police. It is submitted that the P.W.l<\/p>\n
though  complainant, she never spoke about the<\/p>\n
‘V acceuptariceiiof bribe amount by the accused and also the<\/p>\n
i_’e,di’bmand.”i In internal page in the deposition she has stated<\/p>\n
.  that  do not know to read and write the kannada language<\/p>\n
it ehd I get the same written by somebody else.” in view of the<\/p>\n
said deposition, it is submitted by the learned counselpthat,<\/p>\n
though the complaint has not been written by the but<\/p>\n
the scribe has not been examined on   <\/p>\n
prosecution. In respect of P.W.2,..who_is  shaldotw ‘witness<\/p>\n
has stated in her chief-examination  <\/p>\n
went inside the house of accused along with  has” i<\/p>\n
not seen the complainant  ‘bribe “amount to the
\naccused and she also  }ith’e–iiCioinversation between
\nthe accused andthe  did not seize
\nany money    that both
\nP.W.1 and    illegal grati\ufb01cation of
\ndemand  behalf of the accused and
\npetitioner.’  that the ingredients of Sec.<\/p>\n
7 of_–t.he Preventioln of Corruption Act to constitute the<\/p>\n
 ._,_offence ?t’hefe..pshouldlllbe an acceptance of the bribe amount.<\/p>\n
   ~:.:_a_se such things have not been proved beyond<\/p>\n
all ,__reasonai:i–l.cil. doubt. Hence, the appeal made by the<\/p>\n
gprosecutiion is required to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
9. In order to substantiate the submission, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent placed reiiance on<\/p>\n
reported in 2003 (2) KCCR 985 betweefii.   <\/p>\n
Lokayuktha Police, Mandya V. V’<\/a><\/p>\n
has been held that-\n<\/p>\n
PREVENTION 01:’ co1?{2UP?I*i’oiV Ac:.~=j”I..93;3 W.
\nSections 7 and 13(1) (ci’)’e\u00bb._–T–V’i’Evidence:'”ori record
\nbrings out the fact of the  notes’ being
\nrecovered from  pocioet . and his
\nhands being tested positi.i2e:_ye.t’v  ~ themselves
\nare not   holxd’i’.:_th.atn:bfbthe accused
\ndemar’ioh\u00b0.d  __  grati\ufb01cation from the<\/p>\n
compiainarict anti’ receibvedv the same.<\/p>\n
in ‘Anothe’rv’vA:_juiigni’ent reported in 2006(3) KCCR
\n1445 betvve’en_’State ‘of K\u00e9irnataka v. Kfi’. Hanumanthaiah,<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
 ‘~   has beenhelvd that-\n<\/p>\n
  ‘EREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,<\/p>\n
 .  j’9\u00e9”8n:.–‘A*s.>;\u00a7ctions 7, 13(1) (d) r\/w. 13(2) –. There<\/p>\n
 s\u00a3;o’u1.ci’ be independent corroboration for proving<\/p>\n
ihescase of demand and acceptance of bribe for<\/p>\n
 ‘i\ufb01nthe offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r\/w
\nV b  13(2) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1 988.<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
11. It is submitted that in View of the earlier judgment<\/p>\n
even if it is required from the pocket of accused<\/p>\n
sufficient to hold that the petitioner has  <\/p>\n
accepted the bribe for the presu.inpti.on   the C<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act. in   <\/p>\n
judgment it is submittedi__V.”that there\u00bb _sh’ou1:d”‘ an”?<\/p>\n
independent Corporation for the case of  demand
\nand acceptance of th’C..i:i’Drib.e.  }i.It””i.’s:’.:i:s:ubrr1itted that the
\nindependent wigtnesseis\ufb02 v_  P.W.2 and 3.
\nP.W.2 is also   a shadow Witness.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.3 is ali-:~..gC.JV  of them have not
\nsuppoartedi they have turned hostile. When
\nsuch being” the   the Court below rejected the<\/p>\n
caseof prosecutiori. Hence, it is submitted to dismiss the<\/p>\n
i C  -case of 3prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
C’  12.  I heard the arguments.\n<\/p>\n
I.3_.7~In View of the arguments made by both the parties<\/p>\n
\u00ab.:i”‘grV1.:;1ii”‘a’1A’T.so in the light of the parties and the judgment placed<\/p>\n
l2<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the respondent, the points\ufb02for my<\/p>\n
consideration are;\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the Court below has
\nerror in rejecting the case, of prosecution’?-. it\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the prosecution has lprovedgtlhpe it
\nof the accused for llthel’l’o\ufb01’ences. ‘punishable
\nUnder sections’ ~~referi”ed_  ~– _\n<\/p>\n
14. My..a’nst;trer \u00a7;youir:l..’be\u00ab. referrediflto in favour of the
\naccused,    ,.  V
\n ‘4.._}ff_EASONS\n<\/p>\n
15.lxThe  is the complainant,’ nodoubt she<\/p>\n
has\ufb01gnade out Cas_e__,before the prosecution that the accused<\/p>\n
\u00bb has_Vde.rr1anded a bribe of Rs.500\/- on her oral complaint, it<\/p>\n
‘was,reVduc’ed”;:to writing by a person, who has not been<\/p>\n
narned  ascribe. However, on the basis of the complaint<\/p>\n
r’educed'”to writing, P,W,1 was sent along with 13’.W.2 as a<\/p>\n
 shaciow witness with a predetermined suggestions to the<\/p>\n
 ~-parties. As per the directions, P.W.1 to 3 along with the<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
police have recorded. When the complainant herseifturned<\/p>\n
hostile, question of proving the case of prosecut_icnl”b:e\u00bbylond<\/p>\n
all reasonable doubt does not arise. Assuming <\/p>\n
turned hostile in order to help the”‘ac.cused,_..a:tieast ‘P.\u00a7W:2, i<\/p>\n
who is an independent witness shoui.d “have” sup,p\u20ac.)rte:d~..tl*re,V<\/p>\n
prosecution. But she alsols.ta’ted iniherichi’ef-lexaminationl’<\/p>\n
that there was no dernand and:iaccep_tance”and  recovery
\nfrom the police. When” the question of
\nproving the caseof   Accordingly,
\ncourt ijg-lfllldellcases referred by the
\nlearned  throw light on the
\nsu’ojec\u00bb_:t. ireported in 200812] KCCR 985
\nthis Court has lhreld;fhatpmf\ufb01oidence on record brings out the<\/p>\n
act of the citrrency notes. being recovered rom the ocket o<\/p>\n
-‘ accn’se”cI..,and hlislhands being tested positive yet they<\/p>\n
 “dre_in~ot su\ufb02icient to hold that accused demanded<\/p>\n
illegal  from the complainant.” Though<\/p>\n
l’V..,presun1,ption is there U\/sec. 20 of the P.C. Act, but this<\/p>\n
 go along with the ingredient of Sec. 7, it cannot be<\/p>\n
  read and understood independently. Sec. 7 of the Prevention<\/p>\n
1’<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
of Corruption Act has to be read along with Sec. 20 of the
\nPC. Act, there shall be a compliance of the ingredient-“of Sec.<\/p>\n
7. Thereafter Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption-vvfor<\/p>\n
the purpose of presumption comes into picturefin the “1-nstai1ti’~.<\/p>\n
case though after wash of the accused  <\/p>\n
turned pink, itself is not suff1cient’\u00absin’ce”ther’e  no<\/p>\n
recovery from the accused,\u00bb ._V’Second’1’y1_ when  herself V V<\/p>\n
states that, there was no ancfacceppitance and
\nrecovery from the  V importantly the
\ncomplainant he’:s_elf has  thing. Under
\nthese   Court to hold in<\/p>\n
favour of  ‘ .\n<\/p>\n
V’Accordingi3f”the_app’ea.1 is rejected. The order passed<\/p>\n
by the  below  af\ufb01iirmed.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 Author: L.Narayana Swamy IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 BEFORE 1′ THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SwAMYj_~ ;_. A’ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511_,I.:2.\u00a2\u00a7;fc3\u00bb3EwA.T.::’ _ 3 BETWEEN: AND: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\",\"name\":\"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009"},"wordCount":2068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009","name":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-22T13:17:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-by-police-inspector-vs-h-p-jagadish-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State By Police Inspector vs H P Jagadish on 18 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26068","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}