Karnataka High Court
Arun Kumar vs State By P.P on 8 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE mama TH13 'rm new my 01:' JEIHE, 2010 BEFORE THE HOIPBLE am. JUSTICE ARALI J %%
ggmm Arunmmmr S/<> JarappaPooja1'y Afawymm Kharabandaelfiane, AgraharaPoat.. _ ' ' (By S:-i. 3:. 5 mu . . ' . 'I Sta'neby;P'.,P:V V' N M (By I-ICGP, Adv.,) Petitian is filed ms 397 ufh-.,P.~--C by the actvocam for the pctitiaonexr pr,a'3*.i:1g- 'vthi3"_jHon'ble Court may he pleaaad to set aside the damd 29.0-5n'.201€3 (Annexure-{'.3) passed by mg or the 1 Addl. District and S.J.D.K. S.C.He.11'7/2009 in as far as it ralatm to _ clmfi fin' aligned ofiwcea p[u/a/417 : % 53:331.; afnnc.
Crimiml Rwhim Petititm comma 611 for ' admisaion 115$ day, the nwurtmade the £al1awing:
'_____(---._..........-\,, 23.1 The revision petitioner hexein who is gamma in the Sasaiom Case aa.11'7/zoos gem rm file of £133: mm First Aamonaz Smaicns Judge, ' K;amm:'4&a::""T}?ax§,aé'T 13:2' chafisnged the eorraotneaa ~~ V v% dated: 29.04.2010 in um petitziotmr - punishable undm of mo and 'm £o the nature on-he impugned' the I , thi matter is when though it 13 listed for aed.mms' ian.
Sri.I.'Im1-anath Patna' 11', the hm:-nee! revision pemisnm -- accused and ' V . _ Plaader are hard on marrits. AM
3. At tbs outset S1-i. Tharanath Pbcjari, the leanwd counsel fiar the revision petitioner -~ aubnam that he has no griaevame against the Order, imofiar as it nelatm no of '4 ''~ the revision petitioner -- accused fir Sact1om' 312, 375, 594 ma%LLkso6%%%oir 11=c:,:,'MV'4 1:;-.1§ impugned Gum cannot be as it relates to framing of the offencas under Section 41?. gt' contnnfiaon he has at' this court 'm Fs.Ant!uauidat in ma K it is abaerwd by the Division com: use [GSXTRAL A«A'%1;éT%%%T*m.§a or many - ammo: 3-re - A "hg:ufi_.laduaaod the am on tn mm of nursing: to want: no Iona) which mama in pregnancy. as not many can cl':-ape was mad but " acquittal. m Appeal High court hat! "tau than mean allowed do not eonstmzco an am»: atflapa. It khrthot ollnuvcd hy ,._.§"'*\a--
thekeachntpuuzmtheniddecilian I33 :2. no nu-cunt mamas ndvumnd that the «mucus nu cheated the m-1%=§ha« _ would not haw Agreed to what had amcptoa .
nail the lxuluaemnnt we mg. hm substance, :8: suhahaiag is'.1;_I:fat 417 Inc mm apply in an it uncpa to him azmugmésmx, rum :4 common pa:-hnaov I§.":1;nach of mania or nsntriugg f:aac't-.§f~3V._§';l§3n:in§ an anal.' titan 'a-ting; me that at "iagmueas: an!' which would /\u of breach of
-of' V. 'rha tau-nod U131' em 'a flown': upucmou 3 in um met that having % nu mum. can if the In uaunption. that having its eoaonqwnmue crunch ants, the xshouki not he ilk-mad to fit sway. .. Vj'he"--:.aonl uspseacts of the an: an anwuly = .._d§£ruaat Mama own it 1: carat or at noeicty dinpproml of the «asset or the seemed a 'T at criminal court. it would not be pormmibln to wand 11. conviction unless the slriat (-'-~.§M"""""\--~'""'