High Court Karnataka High Court

Thippaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Thippaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
' AGED 11.301?!' $'? 

{N THE HIGH coum' 012' KKRNATMEA;   Q * I 

DATED THIS-THE. 0187 DAY 05-?     
BEFORE " 1    
THE HON'-BLE MR.     


BETWEEN: V     _
'I'I-IIPPAIAH s/o H{J8_SA1E§l Ll';P£§V.::  

R/AT no.1-9.79,~%.AzaI::TLNA¢ARV,%  C
5'11'?!-on Rr.;-.4«.r.2.;r<=9.:cm_.a.g=;   r

{BY 3. .-K 9; 'SH' V? . gs'-E .SI*%E1'§_'.';'--95 " % '

ms s:13*iw.&%;§'§€ A.'D_E"A$'S'I'S,'ADVb._) %

AND' 

f    MATE ore  %

 u :  REP. 33* rrs REcus'rRAR ¢A;DMu:|-  7

 ~ mp; :35: rrs CHIJEF-smcnmx-R¥T'* . ,
1.'!',l"E;'}.!'lA1.LI.l"_¢'-lax! I"\l-'IA '

vi'  zsuumm,

Ah  .

2 was HONBLE LO-l{iAYUI€'FPl£--R xARrm'rAxm~~ %
-i»i_;.S3;BiiiLD'iivit":i.:~W£Tii!_siat'JiTEl"J'ri-  T % %

... 'RE8PONDE|':|'I'8--

   ...(§Y' are: H M-:MANdUNA'I'H'. men FOR R1 &'2- 

'SR1 GOUTHAM DEV c.ULLAL._ £&Dv- 1:-or¢*Rny.'T* " 

I' 'P""""



ms wnrr PE'I'I'i'lON 10 011.00 UNDER Annexes 50:00.' ' n
227 05* THE.  09 mam PR.AY!-!!Q..'!'Q'QU3:$H.  
REPORT UP. 19.5.2003 av ms Aonmomu. REGlS°i'RjvAR"Q§?_R'2_V 0 A A

;-
v u-- v unsw-

VIBE A!*!'!il-.A .!*l-D 1"'-'|'f'

Milo

' nan ' an ur'|.rI.rIvI...pI\aIn ._

nun Fuulnruua an vIJ'C-o*'il\a'iJ-l.¢.$'Iil.l.lC_I'"'-'-n'.i'|=5_Il Elias' -Iulfluli

if

is _i1Ilp1l§l:Ict'3:  The pantie' ner
has nine  mport dam 13.03.2003

which  at 'Ann an' Vin"   petiflon.

 AA  .....  sfi _ _  %

 f _ for the.-_ _nct1floncr' _. fii Goutham Dev

(}§E,lfinI.  nnnnnnl nu-nu-Inrina liar nnnrunndnnt Mn F) and

L

I-n---.-cl ('1.---_.--..--...-...d. A

x a..: u an im......:.......a.1.. ..:......_.......... ........-......:__... _
 an um.-;.mauu_|uunI.u, nacuuuu uuvw.-unwui. nuvuuuw uppcullug

 Respondent i~I'o.i. Having heard the 

1

3}

THIS? PET TION comic; on F0}: _ H03ARtN:G’..TH0is

hC–1 J
III. ‘

nnpuan A. 1_a_. Annex”

3. ‘Though aevemi contentions have been *

learned counsel for the the sheet’ ” ” V’

mac’ 3 for in this

Ieportdated 19.05.2003whic1:1’ia._.iInp2ugnedV: 7 ‘A’.

On this aspect of the reader, by

petitioner is that the could not have

w……..-“t:ete..-‘ at U’fiii uuuay’ “””‘uxI:naa”””‘
in w.P.No.0105;20j0r.:S, oftm 05.09.2007
and «.t;cm_ would be invalid. As such.
there; is no ” fair’ this to advert to the detmh ofthe

the report dated 19.05.2003 ia

m’A’i.enme-.:e*-…~’-.3-..-:2.-.%e-..-‘.d*’…-ea.-m-.eis

5

vtIf’qttt~;’t~..=t.-3.-t. s;.-.c..–.- the fi”lIP’i3fi.I-ll.”‘a’} 6i’t’;e’f dated 10.05.2tas is

‘ heid to he not sustainable, other grounds

e Winsofar as questioning the enquiry repott dated 13.03.2000

at’ ‘;5″”””

atflnnexure ‘B’ to the petition is premature _at

I do not find it necessary to get ” ”

question the same only aflnr V ‘ % >

a flesh older in View of the dam J1a=V;o5:.2oeoa being

to the I-legible U9 the .-.-1.1.-.3: e!

the petition stands.

_