Karnataka High Court
Thimmarayappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 131 day of July, 2010 it
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE Naségikaaltj .
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITEQN .No.fi83L8 }'i2oiott 'V
BETWEEN
Thimmarayappa,
S/o.Nanjappa, V 2 _
Aged about 44 years, -_ <
Owner of C K Concrete Hallow,
Block Bricks Factory, '
Doddakallasandra'jvillagef, '
Uttarahalli . "
Bangalore South,'i'é§lugk;={fj--_ V. .. Petitioner
(By Sri P Ad'v*--;)..._
AND: A
State of A
Thalgagattapura 'Police Station,
xDistri»ot: ____ .. Respondent
' Vijiayklurnar Majage, HCGP)
* . B rhiéjcr:1;iaP is filed U /s 397 read with Section 401
of "~«.._Cr,l~**;C.j',»* praying to set aside the order dated
1 1.6...20,1O passed by the Fast Track Court--l. Bangalore
Rura1*District at Bangalore in SC No.99/ 2007 .
This Crl.RP coming on for orders this day, the
Alleourt passed the following:
'i_______{'*'*-x.»-"-\.
ORDER
The office objection as to maintainability~.o:f-,_the revision is over ruled.
2. Learned High Court '1'AP1:eader"V"wis"« directed to take notice on behalf of"respondcente--:' Statefw V
3. Though this Vniatterii"'is.."e_:'listed for-.,.,.orders on interlocutory app1ication;.'}1avii*1g the nature of the order impugned and the -faet_s_ and circumstances of the case it is taken for final disposai: Sri Leeiadhar, the learned counseifor the"rjeVis-ion.' petitioner -- accused and Sri Vijajy&«:umar Majageif-the learned High Court Government " are '_heard'.W 'V brief the facts leading to the present revision are as under:
a) This revision petitioner -- accused has been charge sheeted, alongwith other accused, for the offences under Sections 341., 427, 307, 302, 12013 .___fir"\.«-
and 395 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 23 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. While the evidenceof PW8 was being recorded, the learned the accused appearing before the ~ raised objections on the grou_nd.,_tha1_:7th"e ietridence '4 of that witness, which was 'going was hear say evidence and 'therefore,.".;the could not be taken on record.
to) In view of the Court adjourned the recording of evidence' -PW'_8 1:leiraniinationlziriechiefl. After i:hev~TrialfCourt passed the imptigiied 1 O permitting PW8 depose what he had heard irniriediatelya place of occurrence. The _ . corrfec'r.n"ess'VofA t_he...irr1pugned order is challenged in this _revisicn_.___'_ _ A.::I3"':..Leeladhar. the learned counsel for the revisionl:p:e'titioner (A2) strongly contends that if the _ statement of this witness recorded by the Investigating if =._"Officer under Section 161 Cr.PC is perused, the same amounts to hear say evidence and therefore the Trial 6.9-~» (3 after the witness is cross--examined by the proseeution with the permission of the Court. Therefore, find any reason to interfere with the irnp§;i:gne:d'.v:'§(§r'd'er' passed by the Trial Court. Hen.::e,»-t.he reviisioriiidd is dismissed as being (L16VOidA:'«VOf~.'};I!1€I'iii'__AClI'1V .cosi;._.A"of Rs.100/--. The said cost psid byvtvbe'~-ifietitioner"'L' to the High Legal Serviees Autiioi'i£y».r.