Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pariah in Linganagouda S/O Babagouda Patil vs The Authorised Officer And Deputy ... on 10 June, 2009Matching Fragments
12. It is true that P'W.1, one of the pariah Witness W110 "itgad attested the panchanama regarciing seizure of the vehicle has not supportcd the cast: of prosecufion. For this reason, tha evidence {If other Witnesses cannot be discarded. TV. VVV" 61'" I
13. The evidence of DW.1, " V' inconsistent. Petitioner would say 1:151} vehicle in front of his house was" airay by forest oficials. In 1316" next 'h_<: W¥t}i1icT£ $';a§{,i§that he had hired his vehicle 9£f; -i;1:._u§z .;11e: purpose of ttransporting gxass, The would say that the trailer which had been crf petitioner during the a1)s4§ff:'1'fi:"t:;V '_éf _ V authorised omccr has found and imzredibie and rrzjectagi. the d'E:f'<az_;:1ct:..s}*t2rSio1i: : The petifioncr has not adduced V'e*zide;t{1;§:t zitc; show tiiat"'hLé: had taken pmcaution to prevent and he had €1C1tI'l1$12€€1 the vehicle to the éonficlence and the vehicle was misused 4' ':v_ith0u§ kzfiowicdge and connivance. Thczefort, I do not grounds to interfere with the impugneé order. __ "«§§cCL}1'di11gly, petition is dismissed. Sd/1;