The state government also said that the sessions court had gone beyond the jurisdiction available under section 227 of CRPC and proceeded to hold a mini-trial purely based on materials that are not put to proof. The jurisdiction of the court under section 227 is to consider whether there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Consideration of existence of sufficient ground does not mean that the court can evaluate the materials produced by the police as if it is conducting the trial of the accused.

The sessions court has relied on two statements given by Sundara and found certain inconsistencies thereby concluding that the statement of him cannot be believed. This approach of the court is illegal and impermissible under the law. It is only at the stage of trial the court can evaluate the material and find out whether the statement of Sundara is to be believed or not. Further, during the trial, the witness will have an opportunity to explain the contradictions, omissions, or inconsistencies, if any, which is denied in the instant case.

The finding of the sessions court that Sundara accepted the alleged bribe voluntarily with free consent is wrong and against the facts. Those findings are against the ethos, purpose, and object behind the SC/ST (Provision of Atrocities) Act, submitted by the state government.