{"id":52172,"date":"2010-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-31T07:41:27","modified_gmt":"2018-07-31T02:11:27","slug":"m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 19%: DAY OF FEBRUARY 9991.9\nBEFORE 'COO\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJ_I5L\u00e9i I 'v C \n\nCRLAPPEAL NOQI 1:6\"4'\/';l'9..98_*  =   \nBETWEEN:   I  \n\nM HUTCHAIAH I \nFORMERLY POST MASTER\n\n(LOWER SELECTION GRADE)\nPEENYA SMALL'~JINDUSTR1.ESC\"~-_\n\nPOST OFFICE, \"BA\\EG.A.\u00a7L;OREJf  Q\nR\/A 3312, RAILWAY P.AP;AI~;LE'L'._ROAD\nRPC.LAYOUT, VIJA'\ufb01PJAGAf{ 1 \u00abN '\n   *  \n\n FFF     ...APPELLANT\n(BY 'SR1 S.P.  I\n\nAND: '\n\n     STA*\u00a7f*E.I3Y CI3I-,\/SPE\/\n\n EB:AT_\\_IGALGR.E.. .  RESPONDENT\n\n A fj(I3.1f M4'\/S ASHOK HARNAHALLI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)\n\n. ' CI~iI;;,A;PPEAL IS FILED U\/S 374(2), Cr.P.C.\nAGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 21.9.1998 PASSED\nBY .1 Ira ADDL. CITY CIVIL 3: SESSEONS JUDGE 3:\n\n 99 SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE, IN C.C.\n\n5]\" .73\"\/\u20ac86 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT ACCUSED FOR\n OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECS.4o9,\n\nPCAND 5(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,\n\n\n\n2\n\n1947, AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R1. FOR\n3 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF' RS.3000\/-~.\n\nThis appeal coming on for hearing this day, the\ncourt delivered the foilowing \n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This appeal is directed against <\/p>\n
order of conviction in C.C.73\/Z556 dated  The  <\/p>\n
allegations against the appellantbelforc
\nwere, a sum of
\ntowards customs   parcels
\nunder receiptnos.  from one<\/p>\n
Verglfiesexoff=Soiithern’-Electronics, Bangalore, was not
\naccountepd-by to the daily account of Sub<\/p>\n
Post”O.\ufb01ice  he was working as Sub Post Master of<\/p>\n
  Industries Post Office, Bangalore.<\/p>\n
   :”i\u00a7he’AV~l.:;”l\u00e9a1ned trial judge, on appraisal of the<\/p>\n
ei}ider\u00a7rce”l\u00a7rought on record in the form of PWs~l to 11<\/p>\n
  ” I\u00a73:s.P1 to P20, ultimately convicted the accused for<\/p>\n
 offences punishable under Section 409, IPC and also<\/p>\n
for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrievedh by the<\/p>\n
said judgment of conviction, the present 3pp\u20ac3.i’~iS”\u00abfi1\u20acd.<\/p>\n
3. According to the appellant, the <\/p>\n
committed gross error in not appreciating’ evidence in . ii<\/p>\n
the right perspective; by dra\\ving?’_vVronlg’~.
\ncourt has convicted the  but
\nmiscarriage of justica \u00abnot. toiihave come
\nto the conclusion    the parcel was<\/p>\n
delivered to  l’pfavrnent of customs<\/p>\n
duty; the.iapipell_ant alone could have misappropriated the
\nsaid amount.’  evidence of PW3 and PW4,<\/p>\n
no; other evidence in this regard came on record and<\/p>\n
 ‘ithe learned judge was not justified in placing<\/p>\n
  evidence of PW3 and PW4 and drawing<\/p>\n
adverse inference. Similarly, admissions of the appellant<\/p>\n
 .. A’ in statement ought not to have been relied on by the<\/p>\n
 and it explains bias while discharging duty as a<\/p>\n
 judge. Similarly, confession letters at Exs.P8 to P11<\/p>\n
4<\/span>
\nought not to have been relied on. The trial court, placing
\ntotal reliance on these confession letters wherein<\/p>\n
remittance of certain amounts came to be  the<\/p>\n
appellant, was totally wrong, and it <\/p>\n
consideration non–app1ication ofniind ;of”the’jVsanc”\u00a3iVor:in’g_ it<\/p>\n
authority while according sanctioiri’lv to’.
\nappellant. With these aVe’1=rnents,.__ he  for<\/p>\n
setting aside the judgrnentolof co-nvictionlll\n<\/p>\n
4. Arguments of  le-arned “eoui;.sel for the appellant<\/p>\n
and the Special  A  representing the<\/p>\n
resp&)nd_ent  heard.\n<\/p>\n
5. ‘According   counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
appe’l1:-int  aged ’70 years and the alleged offence<\/p>\n
  toiiyiiaveybeen committed by him pertains to the year<\/p>\n
   in the absence of convincing and<\/p>\n
clinching’ “evidence, the judgment of conviction deserves<\/p>\n
  A’ to-foeyyset aside. As against this, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
\ufb02rlespondent authority submits the reasoning of the trial<\/p>\n
–. ‘ ,;;\u00bb<– "\n<\/p>\n
.\/\/<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
court cannot be termed as perverse, and there is no
\nsituation wherein this court can interfere with the<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
6. The court has gone through the <\/p>\n
trial court and the records.\n<\/p>\n
7. The point that wouid aris._e fol’C-onsiderati’oni.jjs”::;_*<\/p>\n
Whether the judgment
\npassed by the triait. court “warrants
\ninterference? ” – . — ~ . 2<\/p>\n
8. Evidence of theegwitne3sses”–on_’record would reveal<\/p>\n
that stingastantipm ‘oreriie, one Gangadhar {PW1)
\nwas iielations Officer and Peenya Sub<\/p>\n
Post was jurisdiction. Every Thursday<\/p>\n
 A.maV1’\u00a7e”‘**a”‘Visit to Peeny Sub P0. and in July
\n    visited the said post of\ufb01ce, he found one<\/p>\n
 was searching for credit bilis. 011<\/p>\n
information, PW2~K.Raghunathan was asked to bring the<\/p>\n
‘records and on veri\ufb01cation of the records summarily,<\/p>\n
xithey did not find corresponding entries in the head P.O.<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
summary sheets pertaining to customs duty received on
\ncertain parcels. Parcel receipts at Exs.Pl to ?3 are<\/p>\n
marked and EX.P4 is the daily account of<\/p>\n
Office. PW2– the Assistant Superintendent <\/p>\n
Division, explains how parcels’ are.V’lldelivercdl\u00bbV after. <\/p>\n
collecting customs duty.\n<\/p>\n
irregularities and veri\ufb01cation. of
\nPost Office along    verifying
\nthe records, it revealed   parcels<\/p>\n
mentioned above were receivedgat’ Peenya l3.O. and on<\/p>\n
19.11;; \ufb01vvas~~cVollected as customs duty
\nbefore ”  .PW3–\\\/’erghese {representative<\/p>\n
of S_outhe;rnEleiittronics). This payment is substantiated<\/p>\n
  gs p’er””‘EX.Pl2. PW4–Boraiah was the postal<\/p>\n
l  under the appellant at the relevant<\/p>\n
 of’ who speaks about receipt of the parcel and<\/p>\n
 pp delivery of the same to PW3 after collecting customs<\/p>\n
 He admits the entries made by him at EXP13,<\/p>\n
_.:\u00a7windoW delivery receipt, Ex.P14 parcel abstract referred<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
to in Ex.P13. Ex.Pl5 is the customs duty register and
\nthe relevant entry is at Ex.P15(a).<\/p>\n
9. So far as the evidence of PWs~\u00ab~3 and 4.,’<\/p>\n
the fact that three foreign parcels \u00e9were
\nPost Of\ufb01ce, Peenya and delivered  Vconceifnedrc <\/p>\n
addressee after collecting   <\/p>\n
PW5-Vedanayagam,  –assistant, _ V’ discloses ‘receipt
\nof parcels at Foreign Post”\\j\u00ab–_Oftice, i’E’3an.galore, and
\nassessment of custorns  eachplarcel. Ex.P6 refers<\/p>\n
to the entry  Sub\ufb01g  Peenya P.O. and<\/p>\n
 pertaining to the said Post
\nOf\ufb01cer  isl\u00e9adina’-Baiasubrainaniyan who lodged the<\/p>\n
coignplaintl to as per Ex.Pl6 after holding a<\/p>\n
X p_relir_ninary.., enquiry and being convinced of the<\/p>\n
  PWIO is the Senior Superintendent of<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
 Bangaiore, who inspected and investigated the loss<\/p>\n
 .. ii  to Peenya Post Office which revealed that i3’W2<\/p>\n
hlgreported fraud committed by the appellant to the extent<\/p>\n
of Rs.1,10,000\/–. PW11-Narayar1a is the investigating<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
officer who completed the investigation and \ufb01led charge
\nsheet; he refers to FIR issued by the eariier 1.0.-<\/p>\n
K.P.Kausha1.\n<\/p>\n
10. The evidence on record would reVea.l\u00a7_:’thatV:’noiie”of<\/p>\n
the officials working either at yPeenya.’o’r”‘ or<\/p>\n
Foreign Parcel Office had  <\/p>\n
the appellant. During thcV_nonnal’courset..oi;~\u00bb.insp,eetion*of
\nPW1, non–remittanc_e of  customs
\nduty came to  enquiry in the
\ndepartment duty pertaining<\/p>\n
to the  three parcels. Though the
\nappellant’ chaileri.-\u00a7es’:”the’confession letters at Exs.P8 to<\/p>\n
there is on record to show that it was taken<\/p>\n
. ‘under icoeurcion from him. He ought to have raised such<\/p>\n
  earliest point of time before the court,<\/p>\n
but till “trial commenced, accused did not take such<\/p>\n
 it defence. Therefore, such contention is oniy for the
\nu”.p’u”rpose of defence. The evidence of PW3 establishes<\/p>\n
 remittance of customs duty on Rs.19,473\/– which was<\/p>\n
‘N4<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\ntaken note of by PW4 who has made corresponding entry
\nin the record. The records maintained at the concerned<\/p>\n
office would make it crystal clear that PW4 wvon:idt’never<\/p>\n
receive any amount towards customs duty:— if irio1*e<\/p>\n
than Rs.100\/–; the addressee__wou4ld the. <\/p>\n
Post Master and in his presence
\ncollected before deliveringithe parcel.’  is not
\ndenied by the accused. Th-e”ev_:idence on ‘1’ecord makes it<\/p>\n
crystal clear that after receiving fayrnount, accused did<\/p>\n
not credit tI1Eg$Ei_T.I1\u20ac:;t0 the co[ncemea~ account in his Post<\/p>\n
O\ufb01ice”ar1d_V.there:EjreAistnotieflected in the daily account
\nat  sent to Rajajinagar P.O. Even in<\/p>\n
his 313tstat’ement;–,_h’e=”admits that only Rs.-\u00a31\/– has been<\/p>\n
   t.o\u00abc1istoin’sVduty on 19.11.1982.
\nV  1  evidence on record would reveal that
\n  of fraud, two amounts, Rs.10,000\/– at
\n AA one  and another Rs.5,000\/~ came to be credited by
\n‘ appellant\u00bb-accused towards the short amount of C.D.<\/p>\n
piparcels. All these facts would only indicate that the<\/p>\n
I0
\naccused who was well aware of misappropriation of
\namounts by him kept quiet till it was revealed during the<\/p>\n
regular inspection. There is no material in ti1ef_fo’r+rn of<\/p>\n
cross–examination to suspect the bona  <\/p>\n
genuineness of any of the\u00bb~witnesses’;”c-‘I,’ Vln.:}_tl’;.\u20acsVea. <\/p>\n
circumstances, the appellant  ahlez
\nthe reasoning of the lea:*nedrtrial judge .vva_s
\nit deserves an order of””ac:qu’itta1.  “Therefore, the<\/p>\n
reasoning of the  clo-ulrt’ Ii.el’d._ as justified in<\/p>\n
12.  _ Thev.”vVa.p’ove4..iV conclusion and reasoning would
\nir1dicate..there”is no good reason to reverse the judgment<\/p>\n
ofreoriviction  \ufb01nding of guilt as proved in respect of<\/p>\n
.’ the above, charges.\n<\/p>\n
    to the quantum of sentence, it is seen<\/p>\n
that  far as the offence under Section Prevention of<\/p>\n
it ,, ” Corruption Act is concerned, commission of the offence is<\/p>\n
 prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1988.<\/p>\n
li<\/p>\n
Section 5(1) and (2) of the Act of 1947 are replaced by
\nSection 13 of the new Act of 1988. Under the old”Act, if a<\/p>\n
public servant dishonestly or fratidulently<\/p>\n
misappropriates or otherwise converts <\/p>\n
any property entrusted to hlI11~~UI14(pi6I””‘ asldaf <\/p>\n
public servant, or ailows “to
\npunished with imp1isonnicri’t~.._for a ‘shall not
\nbe less than one yearkbut_it”1na3r’e:-ztend\u00e9lupto-‘seven years
\nand shall aiso be liableto  to the said<\/p>\n
section pro_vide_s*_- the court withlfdiscretion of reducing the<\/p>\n
said .ivsente;n-ce in1pr.isoninent of less than one year
\nprovided there  reasons’ to do so.\n<\/p>\n
14. So”-.far as-the 3 present enactment of 1988, there is<\/p>\n
n,o’:’\u00abdis,cre,tion to~th.e’court to give lesser punishment than<\/p>\n
‘ y*ea3*.,”’\ufb02ie–refore, the minimum sentence is one year<\/p>\n
 mvaidirium is seven years. In the present case,<\/p>\n
commission of the offence is de\ufb01nitely prior to the Act of<\/p>\n
 Therefore, the question is, Whether there are<\/p>\n
’12
\n‘special reasons’ to exercise judiciai discretion of the<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
15. As long back as in the year 1973, Theirvrpixirdships<\/p>\n
of the apex court said:\n<\/p>\n
‘In considering special preasons;”‘j*u.:d~icia:1
\ndiscretion of the couijt
\ndemand of the _cause..  substa:nti’a1   it
\njustice.’ A A A A  <\/p>\n
At paragraph 10, Tiieir  the Very<\/p>\n
purpose of sentence.   the incident in<\/p>\n
question ‘in””th’e year 1982 and charge
\nsheet’Aca;’ne’ 11.984 or so. Trial ended in 1998.<\/p>\n
Now_we1″are ,iri–_  Apparently as the offence in<\/p>\n
  has ‘Ho’ccu’rred prior to the new Act of 1988,
\nA  be under 1947 Act. Proviso to Section<\/p>\n
 of  ‘Act of 1947 gives the court discretion to the<\/p>\n
 gcourtgto reduce the sentence of less than one year for<\/p>\n
8’  “‘s.p.\u00e9cial reasons’.\n<\/p>\n
\n__,_? p<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
16. In this case, the appellant–aCcused is 70 years old,
\nguilty of misappropriation of funds as Sub Post lviaster at<\/p>\n
Peenya Post Office to the extent of <\/p>\n
Though he paid Rs.15,000\/- in the year 1e9\u00e934,’y<\/p>\n
pay the rest of the amount for..various_”  ‘t1’1at. <\/p>\n
as it may, in the last days;””.of::..’_A’his
\nprevailed on this seventy;ye:ar_old.riian  the
\nloss caused on va.c’coun’t”‘  this ‘rnis’con}duct, and
\nmisappropriation of   back to Post<\/p>\n
Office account, T  has realized that<\/p>\n
he h.as”‘c11.o;’+;jight\u00a7:.; to “make ii’se”‘of public money. He has
\nretired from sen}ice’and,,4the offence in question has taken<\/p>\n
place 2Elyea1*s page)’-._sHaying considered ali these facts and<\/p>\n
  takinzgyiiito consideration that his wife is suffering from<\/p>\n
  evillnelss, the court is of the opinion discretion has<\/p>\n
to be Sh own in the award of sentence.<\/p>\n
17. ”  “Reliance is placed on the following decisions:<\/p>\n
i] AIR 1974 SC 2336
\n(VED PRM{ASH HANDOOJA .V. DELHI
\nADMENISTRATION),<\/p>\n
.14<\/p>\n
ii) I996 Crl.L.J. 4079 (Delhi High Court]
\n{SUKHWANT SINGH, AC .V. UNION OF INDIA)
\nand<\/p>\n
iii) 2003(3) SCC 64}<\/p>\n
(RAM NARAYAN popu .v. CENTRAL .513\u00a7Ji??_EAU
\n014* INVESTIGATION)  j \u00bb .   ” ,<\/p>\n
17. Accordingly, I pass the following   it ‘A<\/p>\n
a) Appe1lant~accused __shali= AnndergoCirriprisigznnleiit
\ntill the rising of the courtukandd _shail1’~.aj:so: play a fine of
\nRs.1,000\/–, in defaLi_lt%\u00ab- to -inndergc\u00bbiiriprisonrnent for one<\/p>\n
Week,” “for :’1’j.;he V”‘(;effer1–ce’- punishable under Section 409,<\/p>\n
I.P.C1.”*_ ” ‘_ V .\n<\/p>\n
b)”‘S__’o  as’.’.ti1e:.'”_.’offence under Section 5(2) of the<\/p>\n
1?reyen’tjon Vof”-iCVo_};:uption Act, 1947, is concerned. he<\/p>\n
‘  imprisonment till the rising of the court<\/p>\n
  a \ufb01ne of Rs.1,000\/~ and in default, to<\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment for one week.
\n“cl Both the sentences shall run concurrently.<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
d) The appel1ar1t–accused is directed to appear
\nbefore the concerned trial court on 12.3.2010 to vsVe;m_:?e.._the<\/p>\n
sentence and also to pay the fine imposed.  <\/p>\n
Accordingly the appeal is  <\/p>\n
order of conviction. but potmodify-ifig. the <\/p>\n
sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Vgh… H   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 Author: Manjula Chellur IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19%: DAY OF FEBRUARY 9991.9 BEFORE ‘COO THE HON’BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJ_I5L\u00e9i I ‘v C CRLAPPEAL NOQI 1:6″4’\/’;l’9..98_* = BETWEEN: I M HUTCHAIAH I FORMERLY POST MASTER (LOWER […]<\/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-52172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - 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\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-31T02:11:27+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\\\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T02:11:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1932,\"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\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\",\"name\":\"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\\\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-31T02:11:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\\\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - 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\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-31T02:11:27+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T02:11:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010"},"wordCount":1932,"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\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010","name":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-31T02:11:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-hutchaiah-vs-state-by-cbispe-bangalore-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M Hutchaiah vs State By Cbi\/Spe Bangalore on 19 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/52172","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=52172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}