Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: typographical mistake in Karnataka Lokayukta vs H.Sajjad Wahab on 30 January, 2026Matching Fragments
12. Interesting is the unbelievable suggestion by the learned defence counsel to the IO in the cross- examination at para 25 that, ¤¦.7 (¸ÀA¥ÀÅl 3) gÀ ¥ÀÅl 990 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÁR¯É ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀ©âtzÀ C¢gÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁV¸ÀĪÀ ¤¢ðµÀÖ ¸ÀܼÀ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ DVzÀÝ PÁgÀt (¨ÉïÉ0PÉÃj §A¢j£À §zÀ°UÉ PÁQ£ÁqÀ) ¨ÉgÀ¼À0ZÀÄÑ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ 7392 ªÉÄ.l£ï JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®èè. ¢£ÁAPÀB12.03.2008 gÀAzÀÄ destination §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ PÉÆ0Ãj DgÉÆ0ævÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ°è 6053 ªÉÄ.0l£ï §zÀ°UÉ vÀ¥ÁàV 7392 ªÉÄ.0l£ï JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. The reason to rule out, this after thought suggestion is that, the transportation charges admittedly paid in respect of 7392 MT of iron ore. The point to appreciate is that, to believe the typographical mistake, there must have the correct figure either in their application or in the endorsement of the DMG. But both the documents indicates 7392 MT only. The recitals in the letter of the accused reveals, the change of destination for 7392 MT. The defence of typographical mistake has been raised by the accused for the first time and their conduct of keeping silent on this aspect since 2008. Therefore, the question of typographical mistake would not arise. Hence, the suggestion of the learned defence counsel to that extent would not inspire to believe.