Karnataka High Court
Sri Damodar Acharya vs Sri Nagaraja Ramachandra Joshi on 24 March, 2008
II THE IIGE COURT 9!' lflklflflll H' IIIGILDRI2
nawzn rnxs THE 24" DAY or MARCH 2003, '
BEFORE
'I'1-.L"i3 ":«'.".k"{'BLE DR. WSTICE E-'..B"n:m""'1"'nn"?r'T5
BETWEEN
1 :%}'%1I I.-'fl"~'u"-50..-.r.."""LP'\ ;'--*.C'£*P.R'."}'%
sin RAMDA5, AGE _fiEOUT SQ YEARS
EiEEUTI?E fiIREfiTfiR"TfiE CTf.* ' *T
WBRKIHG CHILDREN tcwci." ' ., _,.
MA mmmfi. Efiljflfii,-""?GS.'T' .V
xumnAPUnA,"unnp1a ' =.'<3._ 5
,1. 5f.;~.¥ =2 , 9.. EETITIONER
gay 3&1 vEmxAmEsfi"R HH§: w, Anv.}
gm-u-n-----uu.
1 sax masannua EAHAHHAEDEA aosaz
fihflflfi R:fl.aaB LaHn3%A
sauna VILLAGE} SIRSI
... RESPONDENT
_"_ THis, éfi1$iuAL PETITION IS FILED u/s. 432
cn.r;c;sv~$3n,nnvmcATE sun THE pmwxwzoumn pnnvxua
T%flflT_THI3. HQN'BLE counm MAY BE PLERSED To SET
V_AEIDE" was *GRflER. DT.E5.9.200T PASSED av THE 11
}?J_'1DL= ~~ ,- 311131 lbl I3. E-JD... ZS|36a"ZUO'f AT
."VHfiHEKUREa% DIRECTING THE REGISTRATION OF THE cass
aaazgfiw THE PETXTIONER FQR THE eyygmcs Finis; 139
WQF TEE m.1. An? Ann FURTHER BE PLEASED To uuAsH
'"THE;EhTIE£ ?RFCnEfiihG$ 1% THE SAIB CASE.
THIS CHI"Hf}fi'-3.L PETTTTITJE-i Ififlfiif-3E7} (TIN FCIR
VA"4;RDMIEEION, THEE BET, THE CDURT MHDE THE
F!fIiLLO|Is"IN|E'-:
QRDIH
The petiti0n$r--accused vu in.
c.c.x~m.2£m5xm07 an the file «of the
.:-..' .......' .- ..., L....r:.._....- .L..'L.4 .. r-..... ..4.. .......,.___...: '.;..... V '.'::......
a".J.I....l..D.J..,r .x.m M-m.I...u.n'.= -...u.J..n:»+ ~.;-vuq. L.- y.:.- _;».s.._ A ',.LU.I..
quaahing tha prmcaadings for the §fifafic§%finfia£a,f
Sactimn 138 of the Nhgatiayle infitrumgfifia §c§gu
E: . Learned cmiingea 1;' V. . ifha iséfif inn-a r
eaubmi 1: :5 that the " f:|. led a
private complaintf gafiéinfifiT»Wfiha praaant
gaetitignez has
I PC . 2 ina i..é£--'t 1:-ate aft: er t akifig
c:a:«rg'nia:'..-«=.1nc:a "'a:v:_i.VI:iV...3.*:ec':*:::-r't.i.ir1»g aworn atatemant of
't.v3:1-a tn-ea witnesses by warden
haa held. that the complainant
.."---.';,_r:i:':!.a f.-aci £1.53 as Hfiainst the
II'
:3
,, I3'
A' rt
11:
I
in
I')
..¢"_£'__ _.._ __ __- __. P¢I._ _x.._' _._ *l|"If! ._.C
IZIWIIGE U. CLHI a'..iE'»'.3CJ..DI1 LOU U]:
"fi:§1e._p_.4'Iii'n~5 1:-sv::.c1:.s»5-:1 has er3!c>t9titL":::v; t;»te¢:iv £:}fiV_2'IVe:2.V.£;:e
Sectixzm I1. 38 -::f the 1é«i:4aa'g"g:>1:i_;'i:§.'}':'.-;V_1:$:':' Act .
'Eh-a J28 f-ms.-an , 1 eanned ..was not
juati.fiae::i inf efiainat the
yxeaent ;Aati.t"i,~:;~ne'--r:» "'-ii}.:2r"----.,t11>:¢2 effence 1_1.-.<:1.e.::
fie-r.:tie.':am,' 133"er.«jf_ tiiqe' Eaéegfitiamié Intrumezent Fact.
Iri" df t.11".L'E above circmnstancea,
I- :t1x:'4*?i"~d-F; ?--.'=tCi" thé" '''' ' r:a6pu::ndant-coltlplainant is
._ that fc'J.I:" 'z?.£15.-1' r*"f;fr='.::1---e
" m» =" my
fi.~~ ':.I;v9a::11_a::i caunsal fur the Petitioner.
antiaz: Sactiua
LB
and 500 of Im, the respoxldant has not
ma::1e amt as. prima facie came. I-'st thier
juzicizuarva, I will nut dwell uptmn the merita of
thus was-a. Adm,:i.1:te«:1ly, the Trial Caurt has
1
\\_..--r"'
-:c::1nm.i'f:te-:1 err-ms in'ia=suing p:c-3-2:953 for the
cffencsns uncim" Eemtizan 138 caf the Negati§Lh:Li'e._V
Irmtruments Act thaugh it is 11-at the
:3
:2!
$21.
P
r!'
I-
H
I-
M
(II
H1
-31
H
(II
'I:
Pl
r't'
|_I.
til
:3!
to q1.J.»&E£h the proceedings .'
fr-mu 25.9.2007 till 9.1.E'0Q_.E.
E. In view 'Vfiafition
is partly allaawad dated
25%.9.2c::o*:«' c.=r;.m§~;2sk:§L6£'2»n%oi' on the file
:'o.'!"' +'1-'mm .T'H':'fi'|" r "#1"? 1"-'mi : 1"}-us" n'F"F.nnnn 1171:-31:1»
---- -...--a-an .5-q ,V u----or .. haul-:94'? Iw at was
Sa::1':ir.';'a'217' 13$ fi'u*gQtiaii1e Instruments Act
and the3:aubsaq;i®i:;t_ 'pét§'c4c:~aadings till 9.1.2005
is qua5..s=J_hed. ' v.
made <:1aa.r- that learned
5afia»:L aAns ahall apply his mind and pass
'apyrcayr.-i'&:_ta c-rdars on the sworn statement of
.
5%
4|: an-II-I::.I-Ilr no-5.»: 1′..’t’I. dvvxcsnnaanam -4 -rs 3.:-o.r-1.:-us-.:-In-in;-ins.
|\.’F’&J. “ur”=’g*’|«I-I’hn’nlou’iflu-J-Join?-all-\J’ Halli-Q “Jun ‘In’vLl-V WU7W§” J-LL fi’l-F’!-V”r’Jq’I.rL1luI-W-IV
,-an ~
___””wif.:h iaw.
Sd/’-I
xrzpi -‘ ]’-udge