Kum Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2010
mentioning of
last digit oft -of no consequence. If IMEI
number 14 digits, that would depict
theygcoriect stateuolf affairs. The learned Public Prosecutor
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 141 (3.33 seconds)Mohamed Shariff vs National Investigating Agency on 30 March, 2022
State, the
computer, at the first instance, instead of recording the
IMEI number of the mobile instrument, had recorded
the IMEI and cell ID (location ... immediately and modified the record
to show the correct details viz. the IMEI and the cell ID
of the subscriber only. The document is self
Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
conducted further
investigation. During the course of investigation, he
obtained IMEI number of the mobile phone of deceased-
Yallappa i.e., 911320650035520. On the basis ... given service provider details of the mobile number so
also the IMEI
Srinivas @ Senu S/O Narasappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
conducted further
investigation. During the course of investigation, he
obtained IMEI number of the mobile phone of deceased-
Yallappa i.e., 911320650035520. On the basis ... given service provider details of the mobile number so
also the IMEI
Venkatappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
conducted further
investigation. During the course of investigation, he
obtained IMEI number of the mobile phone of deceased-
Yallappa i.e., 911320650035520. On the basis ... given service provider details of the mobile number so
also the IMEI
Suresh S/O Bhimashi Yatnal vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2025
unique identification
number, namely, instrument manufactured
equipment identity (for short "IMEI number").
Such SIM card could be provided by the service
providers either ... called number, location of the subscriber during
active call and the unique IMEI number of the
instrument used by the subscriber during an
active call
State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Yogesha on 18 April, 2024
accused. On tracking IMEI number of mobile handset of the
victim they apprehended accused No.5 in Anchepalya. On the
basis of the information furnished ... highly doubtful.
Though the accused were allegedly tracked on the basis of IMEI
number of phone MO.7, the same did not match with
Sri Yogesha vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
accused. On tracking IMEI number of mobile handset of the
victim they apprehended accused No.5 in Anchepalya. On the
basis of the information furnished ... highly doubtful.
Though the accused were allegedly tracked on the basis of IMEI
number of phone MO.7, the same did not match with
State Of Karnataka vs Yogesha on 18 April, 2024
accused. On tracking IMEI number of mobile handset of the
victim they apprehended accused No.5 in Anchepalya. On the
basis of the information furnished ... highly doubtful.
Though the accused were allegedly tracked on the basis of IMEI
number of phone MO.7, the same did not match with
Sri. Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 18 April, 2024
accused. On tracking IMEI number of mobile handset of the
victim they apprehended accused No.5 in Anchepalya. On the
basis of the information furnished ... highly doubtful.
Though the accused were allegedly tracked on the basis of IMEI
number of phone MO.7, the same did not match with