K L J A Kiran Babu vs The Management Of on 22 April, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K L J A Kiran Babu vs The Management Of on 22 April, 2010

» AS,C.NO,.-483/06 -
~ R[F3S1?0NDEN'I'S/ACCUSED FOR THE CEEENCE P/U/Ss.86
=,AN9' 87 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT R/W. SEC.379C
AND 511 or I_PC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22?") DAY OF APRIL 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE KN. KESHAvANAEAyA_NA 

CRIMINALAPPEAL1\§O.43'7/20.1.0"-._::  O

BETWEEN:

K.L.J.A. KIRAN BABU.
RESIDING AT: 248 /7B,
VENKATAPURA,

5m MAIN, 6"?" CROSS,
KORAMANGALA 1 BLOCK,   
BANGALORE. '  ._   ...APPELLAN'I'

[ PARTY IN PERSON ]

THE MANAGEMEESIT 01%'   '-

THE HEwLETr;EACEAR1)_ GLOBALSOFT
PRIVATE 'LI__MI1'E1:3_ A " "

HP AVENUE', .39/40, '

ELECTRONICS CITY,

   ..... 

BA_N~0.AECRE~--: 560100.

 RESPONDENT

'  ﬁrms E'C_R;..A_ IS FILED U/8.378(1) & (3)
TEE JU1_3"Q1\/IENT DT.30.12.2006
FAST"  ' TRACK (SESSIONS) COURT~X, ELCRE

ACQUITTING

accordance with law etc?
(J-'Corrected vide court order dated 25.5.?) 2 0)

3'
:32"
2.0. -

CR.P.C
~PRAYING"_*v;T0'~T,GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST
PASSED BY THE P.O.,

TI-IE

.2c;:'tg]2. 010

«3ce3ci4c€<'§.":V@@:d'<§'A['c>x2?s~€.. c;:w~<f§<.'Y '=h{'f'+'

*This Cr1.A. is ﬁled 11/5. 482 & 483 0%' Cr.P.C. r/w Articles 33, 2], 141, 215,
227(1) & 375 Of the Consiéteition of India, praying to pass any order in

I ..

_ 7



2

'FHiS APPEAL COMING SN FOR ORDERS THIS BAY,
THE COURT DELSVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Heard the appeilant who is ~ V. Perused the memorandum of appeal ﬁled "

this Court.

2. As could be seen the*- {he memerandnm of appeal, it appeéjrs that -appeiiamt is trying to invoke jnxésdieﬁen e-f under Sectien 482 of Cr.P.C. 4_$ceki1':g to the trial Court ti; c0r§side1"':V}*;.iS »p':*a§._?e;*__'I"er interim reiiefs and 8359 is expedite' di spee'3.1_ <33 ease. Therefore, treating this é_;8;pp::fé;:§;3. pef:iiiie;:::_....ui1c£er Section 482 C:<*.P.C., I have It is noticed that the appellant had a§.pfeiehe§;iifE?;i§~i: Cour: earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

".121 Cr}.?,:§€:3.;?53]2Q 16 seeking simiiar reliefe and while " ef the said petitiorx, this. Semi passed the V " , .. "fe§j§eax;i:1g Qrder:

'When {he matter is taken up for hearing, the paﬁy in person weuid Submit 9% 3 that the trial Court be dimcttzd to sxpedite tha disposzeﬁ of his case.

2. H13 submissian is recorded.

3. In View of the urgency expr€~3sé§i., the party, the trial d:ife3cte':c1.__':

expedite the disposal of tha 2 .' ' V' K

4. The petition is'v'V{1i;f31:;issééi'- xxfuitivi {figs observation."

3. New if: the .1316 'géﬁﬁoner that ix;

spite of "di_reg:{§.c >Ix-,. laafiied Magistrate has not éisposeciikzf fherefare further direction is :*equ4i;"i:'{£L_€0 2236'-»is_:St;'iec1'V't9Tthe trial Ceurt. Thiis Court: in ﬂ[3t3:'§iTﬂiO§1" £'f'iiI'$(I'fC(3(i 1:216 trig} Court ta €3X§)€i'.di'i€ city? 2133 case and 110 1:11:13 frame was f'1x€<fi by V VV _ this "'CGut':t,. no such thine frame: can 3.130 be ﬁxed by H H " iii this appeak As (':€}'L1}.(3. be gatherezd from the .' s?"n;§:':iissi01*: 8f the petitianér, his coznplairit Eiﬂfiﬁi' T '?Sé<:'i:i9I1 203 Ci".?.C, befere the iearried Maﬁﬁtrate is SE33} A a: ma thrmh 11016 as it is stated is be 36% dawn far /1 __ disp;Q$e"G? sf, 4 recardiﬂg the staiement of Witi1€:SS€S on behalf of the csmpiairmnt. From this, it appears that the 1aa':Fﬁ€f.d Magistrate has not yet formed an opinicsn as A' or not it is a fit case to issue S1}.II1Iﬂ€}I1S named as accused th€1'.'E3iI"1. Unciégf t11e53{§jvCir(:.1L1:1}sta11<;es, question of directing the ieasﬁagd Iv{I agi'stratc;"{G_§fQ§1si;1§f the interim praysr of the app$iiz3§.:'1t.;-_»~ cbﬁiﬁlainaht does not arise. Nev(=:x1;heieVssx,Vf' é_'£§.S i(iiI_'€€t€d by this C0urth1(HlPl%m?53[2GiQ;£h§jﬁ§lC$af£shaD1nake e{1deavV0i1f['E0 of the case.

4. t1§{%:§e"".:§%i;.s:§é;%';?é3}:i<}11$ the app=ea1/ petition is géiféé;

Euﬁﬁa KNKJ:

25.05.2010 CRL. A. No. 437/2010 ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' It is noticed that in the judgment "dated 22.04.2010, the details furnished in the preainble portion do not relate to the case on mistake the details pertaining to some other cases' been typed in the preamble. »Arportio:-ii." his dad' typographical error crept--in 'the same is ordered to be ﬁe-orrected."' The1particL11arsﬂ pertaining to the case are to be mentioned in the prean1b1e'..poi*tionu;'-~ to furnish the amended copy of ..... Eﬁégg

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

K L J A Kiran Babu vs The Management Of on 22 April, 2010