High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivaswamy vs Shivanna on 29 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Shivaswamy vs Shivanna on 29 August, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-1-

I!!! THE KIQH CQLIRT QF KARKA.'!'A.!'iA AT B.A1\EG&L»QRE
D§{i"'ED THIS THE 29*' SAY OF Ai_§C'::EIS'E', 2998
BEFORE

THE HCJEWBLE MR«J{}S?!CE SLFBHASH 

CREMINESL REVESEQN P.¥3';»'E'!'FI{3?~E 1'~EC).,E§54ii3{§{5'?" ::'.'; .  '

BETWEEN:

Shivasvaamy,

Sf 9. Siddamallaiah,

Aged. about 33 years,

Rf 0. Veemgcswtianahundi 

Nafl}a11g1,id Taiuk?   _ ._    * _

M;y--sm~e Dist.ris;:t.  '      v...}.'i"f_'EYi'I'1"E(I)E'~§EE~Z:*

{_:.:'s;§.?% P. [A1.'A«!I21}2;s,¥§;11,-.';*5ir;*»1 t;(;~}VV %  '

1.

. Shivannéé, H ,
Sfcz. M
Aged ab(3utV33 ysafifs; V. V’

N8Il_}’ElI”‘§;vEiS¥E?’E’.iii}f; ‘ –
Sf 0, ,5i%§{ida:11a}}iah*.,:–_. ‘
Egg-Li -aboigiéi Si’; years,

9-5?

9.0

‘ “‘M&§L}§1§£i%&3f;¥’ai3l}’v,”
Sgg.”

Aged,__a’3eu._t. 3;2 _j;Tea1*s,

are B3 {is} Veeregowdazzahlmdi Village,
,N&ujgfiag’ud Taitlk,
‘~ Myjsoxx; Disfiictz

V” b}; Badaxzavahz Peiice

‘ ” Repxesanted by SRP.

V.Hig}:1 Com”? 0:’ Eéarglataka,
” Eangaiore. …f.12.2{){)6 and c:;:-nfirm the

juéigment and oxtier passed by the Adfil Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)

JMFC, §\Ianj2u:1g11r:i§ in {‘§3.€’j’.-.No,952/Of) D1; 1?.11.2€3f33.

This rfivision petitian coming on for Qxtlerg this_.§é};;

Court mavzie the foiiowing:

0 R. I) E R

Though ficxis matter was Cai1Ed?£§¥5;{;€, 35.03%
§et;it:l<31'mr. There is delay of 28 u rgvision
petition. '?hough the rssp912dé:;+ 1£i;'§"m13I"ese:1tt:d, no
objections are filed to thc s9.idvI..A. _ h » '

2. Consicicxfiiggv _’-;au:§..g’ u pfititianer, the
éclay in cgfgéienad.

3. This féviéion’ :1§e :L;:c;7:np1a:nan: 013357 against the
arficr of ‘s§:2tz=:;.11cc~’ iéy’ ‘the: trial Cszzurt immking the
imposing fiat: for the offance

puniéiemhig 3:23, 324 Izzgw kction 34 of the IPC,

x€i{i;3fix’zn&:§;’—i;V1M1 1 15! 2006.
_. fhez Court convicted the accused for €t1:~: (fiance
Secti-03.3 32.3, 324 ww Section .34 of tha :95.
V the Appellate Cmm: modified the sentsnce by

the accused undtar S€Cti{)i1 3 of the ?mba$3’er: of

Cfiehdsm Act with due admenition an them by ebserving that.

the accumd ta enter ixxto a bend tea file satisfacfion 9f the

lfiazzned J.M.F.C. and they would not iI1V{)1’Jt:’ in 3133* 0ff$n§£:–$,

failing which they woulci appear before the Cexzrt and 1//1

SC’~I1tt’:I.’l(,’€=

5. As far as the fine is concem$d.V-i$”;31ad€*’_’ a!3_S0§13i;c $31153;

out of the fine ameunt, directed the pa§,r.i31::1i£ <is:' ,1 ~":

the complainant undar Sectien 35'.7(Vi)– ¥?.tZ1,_ u 1

6. The Appaiiate Ceu::–*.1;as 3EtX€§1′{‘ i:S€?{i”‘ .1116 }’,’${j+\ve7£*A” 11:1der
Secztizm 3 0f the Probatien VA taking into
consideration the hjja$.V:’vad_mb:2.i:§hed subject to
the accused axecgltfiig s9iat:i’$faction of the JMFC,
regarding thcir’é611-afiict ofiié thereafter.

7. A§pe 11_ati:§’ Cmii in: order cf sentenca by
taking into cenL”s%;g1émti;m ‘t1;;a2~_}’%i: is relevzmt to invoke the

pmvisionsg Sécfign Pmbation «:1-f Qfienders Act, I «:19 not

fm;fi –»r¢a:~i4f)11A ‘ix;t.e1’fe1t with the Carder of the Appellate I

— Accefdiflgifi fevisien fails and the same is zilszmissed

Sd/…

Judge

” flap} ”