Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka, By Chief Secretary ... vs Basavaraj Guddappa Maliger on 7 August, 2003

Yunus Zia vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2015

These judgments have been adverted to by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka, by Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Basavaraj Guddappa Maliger3. In the Kempaiah’s case referred to supra, this Court affirmed the judgment of 1 (1998) 6 SCC 66 2 (1998) 6 SCC 103 3 ILR 2003 KARNATAKA 3589 11 the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the Upalokayukta had no power to investigate into a crime allegedly committed by the public servant under the provisions of the P.C.Act, however, this Court did not quash the FIR. Further, this Court made it clear that the FIR registered against the petitioner is not quashed and that it is open to the State to have the offence investigated in accordance with law. Further, in the C. Rangaswamaiah’s case, this Court has held that the police wing on deputation to the Lokayukta, if authorised under Section 17 of the P.C.Act and Section 2(d) of the CrPC, is legally entitled to register a case and investigate the matter and file a charge sheet in a competent court of law under the provisions of the P.C.Act and the CrPC.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri M Girisha vs The State By Karnataka on 13 November, 2014

14. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued before me that the document registered by the petitioner is not in conformity with the provisions of the Registration Act. The nature of the document itself is unknown to the Registration Act and such acts have to 14 be read with other circumstances of the case. She relied upon a ruling reported ILR 2003 KAR 3589, between State of Karnataka Vs. Basavaraj Guddappa Maliger, in order to show that the Lokayuktha Police alone can investigate the matter, when offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are invoked.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - K N Phaneendra - Full Document

Dr. Y Bhaskar Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2016

In the light of the above legal position, the first point is answered in the negative. The effort on the part of the learned 56 Senior Advocate, Shri Chandra Shekar as to the KL Act being an exclusive piece of legislation which would override the general statute, in the matter of investigation and prosecution of matters seized of by the Lokayuktha cannot be accepted, without overlooking the categorical rulings referred to above. Notwithstanding his assertion that a particular line of argument canvassed with reference to legal principles and doctrines were never urged in those decisions. The net effect of those decisions cannot be indirectly overturned.
Karnataka High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 1 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Shefi Ahamed on 18 November, 2003

2. We have heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, both on facts and law, and have done a total and meticulous review of the record. We have heard the learned advocate Sri B. Anand, who has been requested to appear as amicus curiae and who as usual, has done a very competent handling of the brief. Sri Anand draws our attention to an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in the case of State of Karnataka v. Basavaraj, 2002 Cri LJ 843 : (2002 AIR -- Kant HCR 362), to which one of us was party, wherein the Court had occasion to reject the dying declaration principally because the requisite endorsement or certification from the doctor was not superscribed on it, also because of the timing and because of the finding of the Court that the condition of the deceased in that case could not have been good enough to qualify her for making a correct and cogent statement. Taking on from this decision Sri Anand brings it to our notice that in the present case the doctor was specifically asked as to what was the drug that was administered to Naheema after her admission to the hospital and the doctor has stated that she was given a large dose of Compose on the night of her admission and the effect of this sedative would last for at least six hours if not more. On the following morning the doctor admits that the patient was given a dose of Cargactil which is a relatively a strong sedative and the doctor has also accepted the position that these drugs, among other things, would cause drowsiness. Mr. Anand submits that this evidence is sufficient, regardless of what the doctor or the Investigating Officer who recorded the dying declaration may have to say, to conclusively establish that Naheema would not have been in a 100% mentally clear position to make a correct and cogent statement. We do need to uphold the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Sri S M Harish vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2023

14. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the case of State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary, Bangalore, B.C.Chaturvedi's case, Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others and Sri. Gopal Hanumanth Kase's cases referred supra are not applicable to this case, in view of 17 peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Though the principles stated in those cases are not disputed, same are not applicable to the facts of this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1