Sri T K Ramesh Kumar vs State By Police Inspector on 18 January, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T K Ramesh Kumar vs State By Police Inspector on 18 January, 2012

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 18th day of January 2012
: B E F O R E :

HON'BLE MRJUSTICE : V.JAGANNATl--LAN'._l__j'  ,:" 

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 794 / 20005 T   A

BETWEEN :

Sri T.K.Ramesh Kumar, V. .
S/o Late T. Kala Thimmegow'
Aged 31 years, S.D.A., _ _
O/o the ARC. Jeevanbheenianagara,

B.M.P., H.A.L. 2nd Stage, B-langalor_e:38._



...Appellant
( By 'Sr-it )
AN D: _  . . A ._ .

State~by"'Polijce Iﬁs'pector,
Police W_ing,"C2ity_ Division, A '
Karnat aka Lokayttkth .. B ' ,~
Bangalore DiVlVS*iOl1..Al Bangalore.
'  V' 7 "  ...Respondent

z( B3rlSn'1't§T.M.Gayathri, Advocate. ) lCrir1;1_in;al'V..Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the the judgment dated 10.3.2006 passed by the Splll. Judge, Bangalore, Bangalore Urban District, iB;a'ngalore, in Spl. Case No.2ll/2004, convicting and _g 'AA'-sentencing the appellant/ accused for the offence p/ u/ s W» and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988, etc. settled at Rs.l,500/-- and unwilling to pay the said amount, the complainant, who is the son, lodged the complaint with the Lokayuktha police as 21.10.2003.

3. Thereafter, entrustment inahazar ".>Vasv"Coi1:C11__1Cied followed by the complainant shadow witness P.Wl__4 goingJ4_0:tic..:ti:e_v offi.ce:oi% accused at around 4.30 pm'. accused there, the complainant callsover phone and the accused come near Surya Bakeryiand:cQ_IIiplajnant, along with the shadow tne Lokayuktha officials, goes towardsVx"S_urya' At that place, the accused co1i'1es_0Aon a rn'otQr_c,ycle and stops the Vehicle on seeing ' ggcvQ'n1p'la:iI1ant. He demands the amount from the V and the complainant hands over the amount of Rs.l,500/- to the accused and the accused A it into his pant pocket. The Lokayuktha police 'traps the accused and trap mahazar is drawn as per 9/

12. So far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, decisions viz., one reported in (2009)6 judgment in Crl.A.No. 462/ 2OOV3mof the on different set of facts and the»._fac._ts..and.circi:rns'tarices of the present case are e1i.tire.ly different 'and_;v«thVereforew,.i' the observations made in theVV'afo1'esaid' decisions cannot be pressed into serV'ic'e..in the case of the accused.

13. Heard {:11 sentence. The learned counvselffor' submitted that the appellant is a young got a big family of three daughters'; Wife' and son and, therefore, the sentence Onﬂthe other hand, the submission of the for the respondent--Lokayuktha is that, the ti*ial~w'court has awarded minimum sentence in ..respect. of the offence under Section l3(l)(d) read with ""._fS'ection 13(2) of the Act and, therefore, no further " " " reduction is permissible in law. %/

-.1

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court