High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajiv Kohil vs State Of Karnataka By Lokayuktha on 15 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rajiv Kohil vs State Of Karnataka By Lokayuktha on 15 December, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
mwwm war" mammmmmma WWW €..¢.t;)UKE: {;2F.:.: KARNKFAKA Hififi CQURT (BF KARNafi'§'AKJ& fiififl CQURY OF KARNATAKA HIGH CQURV OF ¥€AflNA'§"AE(.& E-§!€3s§~£ COURT

11% 785 HIGH CCWRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.

9.4755 ms was 15*" am or asceraasa  5g 

8EF'0RE

we H€3i'ai'Bi.E i\'!R.,}USTI{ZE zawaa       k
Carmina; mgzgg Pfll'_LI<C)I"i'.t3____:S;';.:;3Lf£*§V13_1,{"3%_.  A"?  

uuuuu urn-urn

1 RAIN 2:0:-11:.  a  
sxo vsapmmss KOHZL     
AGED AEOUT31      
R/AT K'IMSlME'DI_CA§_;CO'i;LE'GE.f=.._ %  %
BANGALGRE    A  
RJAT Nc}."1€i8@E3LFVi.;-1¥'J§C§.?éV  
NEW neu%+1j%%  L     '. 

 %%%% %   + FETITISNER

(3? sm AH %3a,a1:;qSs.§:vjs;k$£§£ gnmaasnaxaxsn MA,A1:::vs.)

ANS

  'STfis*fj'E~€vi?;' $<'.fidi1%AT.#sKA av Les<.acru:<mA

  %mrs¢:Lr<3
" .  3'? TH§ $Tfi«YE ?U8§.I{I ?ROSECUTOR
'iE*i._IG§t§'Ci3.&JRT BUIWIRGS
B£iRGaki.ORE
 "  RESPONDENT

* :(E¥k5:-éu 3.A,sEL.:.zA99A &. 5:-:91 MLNAWAZ, sms.)

Ti-IIS mL.&t= IS FILEG £315.39? as/w 491 cam: m
“SET ASIDE THS GRDER £}T.2.8.G? PASSE9 BY THE
S?L.3U%E, fiAP«iGAL£3¥{E uamzsa 3:51,, §Ai\i®’-tLGRE cm

IR SPLECKGI P46. 138/83¢

This Fetitiors naming are for Finai Qispasaé thia day? the
C3§.::°t mafia ths feifiowingz

2,7

..-wmmw. a «mm a *-*-“‘””* wf IKHKNIWAEQA 2-1i€;;%H COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT 9? KARNATAKA I-QEGH CQUR? OF K&RNfiLTfl.KA H§G!’£ COL???

iii

resutbeci in filing of chargeshaat against {numbers cf-{ha

vzammitm and studenw who had gainad admiasic§;._;§i{%:.§i;g.hv..V
such irrmularities and mat-practices. The

an-mugs: them. Upon submissian af-iti$’e*~fi.né§i’A

accused have been summaned ‘{z’¢§}§;– _ ?$::e&v_..i fi§ia£

opportunity was gi-van 120 ther5r:’§§”~V.L;rge;V’gr9r.:n§i’$
framing of marge. The §2a:tEtio;;a’r’V:§i;£~;fé’E:x.’whe$« ‘is’~r£*2’r;!m as
firs: accused rasietad fian;Enfiu§ ground that
ever: if the is accepted,
it makes out; punishable under
Sectian 33:5 aisa faabie ta raise
charge rérgna 429 and we of me.

hi this rega§é«,._V%%itvv véa-5;VAL:.r1g’a?i’ that tha pefitwaar was oniy

:x;§fiorv_’:§s§ge§V’1? ya§a5w§t..i;he tam of admission am he Wag
‘a«;imiftedA sahegcry afiaer he depesited the
arr’::¢’uV§”: tV’fi$§e§I”j§§7′ f% and he has an raie ta play in any
‘ ___ a.f*se3_§’mtia$’é’:.. and he is irscapahke no? influencing or

. ..1. f ‘_§§c§;SA;:§c#§;:gvV”cammitm members. Howevar, it is afwgad
damfiozt af aimm erima, his aefmission was

“‘x::§.:?i§a¥Iad in E333 month 0? Nayembat 1993 dapriving the

2-zenefifi af aémisskars and image, the has naming tn dc: with
the aiiegeé ma!-gxraaticas. The State had epposm the

cantersftians St} urged :’esa:£ting in the leameé triai sudge

aw

W*”‘~””W’* * NW’ 1 WWW”: 8~«*.§IE:” mmcmmmm. HIWW CQURY Q? KAENATAKA HIGH CQURT OF mmmmm MEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiC§vH COUR”

mm: far 15: war M833 course at this tirm of inbarviaw,-.__his

rank was shawn as 1692 whim was secumd by”

individuai by mama R.;G,Reddy (;.w.27. He
there is my allegation that first V’

impersanatad as said student nor

that signature on filiad up &V[3§[{:|g«Vs’.¥_f>.’§0f3A.V.v’1%fi£i–.fi’$r3dé: ViVfl” {ha
name sf C.W.27. Thu; gjso’ f$¥$fi£S first
petitioner has mart seiectien
aemmittee and with the
inbentian of any of member
éuring ” Eéévgrai either grounds are

urged ea figek ~ ‘

5. Shri fieéliappafl §aa_xfz’é'<i§ fif§:;Js'§seji.'V¥:§§ t§1e respaneierxb
Lakayuktha i:fiA.r;fiwga1:Vi§i:é§'§:v:f the ground urged
m swk:_dischar:gaJ impugned ardar and
pcinm simiiar circazmstances Ea
_cr5.%%w:.p.%:~ao; céafiecm with cr1.m=.No.1wa;2ovas

«..E§jecbefi suzxh cmtentiens and has
':¢'%§§gr%af 31¢ triaf Ceurt framing charge. A
:apyVV:é?..;d**é $a«r§ie $5 made avai£ab£e. It is evident frarn the
arder dafid "19'8.2m9 awed $1'; the abava said cw: that a

gm simim' w tha yiea urged in mis patitior: was

Wmm W mmmmm amm mmm W» s%;ARNA%'I'A2m. a-mm {mum «W mxmumam Haw mmzm M mmmmm mm; mam M mmmam mew Gown'

canvassed. This ccmrt had examined the issue cm the: mint

as be whether the lriai Caurt has assigned sufficient .2;-*ééécr:1 a:._
ta rejeat tha request against Framing bf charge.
noticing the ahservatiama :3!' time: Apex: éiaasxrt '

2081 sc 150}'(5mt.Dmwati and mengevs. $i::.a_viEie2.:"f:i's.E':3v{¥{tg.ijfV§':v~:.

Eielhi Administration and otha?s–§:vL:"'?a_e»Id ittét
was not required to aasjgn §ie§§{§§;«::3"–»..gfaa%dns-_.mi frama
charge. This Court niso giacvad by tha
pr-asecaztion was 'V " # primavfacie
case for char5gaa§"»vf;;;VrA::.:_;:t§§fa"iéfffifiwge under Sectian
12:')-B, 429.ar}§'~§$§1::9f_ the said petftions,
3 am satfifiad tjtiexceptiosz and patitionsrfi

stand is virti:a13]§a.,s$fi':§é'af;sw§§£as urged by ether ca-accused.

go s'ui¢i:–w§v§s__i$_{:«w go in dstaif as be whether the
A"§.'_:;f§;§$V:V"s2,}%;t15':t'.'fA§_f'sf«.:*§sa_ns suppart uitirmbe £t£¥2'££iEiJ$EGi'¥ arsé 5!:

V suL";fi";z§ *–t1cr triai Court'; concfusian that prima-

T 'ficia fiéfide eat for framing the marge is based are

" E : u'ééf?§*ii§r£a§pviécad bafere it by 'him prasacution arid cannot be
'éfiiithg aesidw this, it §§ 233 be natimd that in tha

' Qffiiiéar circumstances, severe? other at/udenhs are arraigned

ulané am pefitixoner stems at par with mam and tim case

éairzg simiiar in nature, rmazéres 23¢ interference with the

F3

irrspzggneé aréer.

w%Nw3°W.i WY” nxnnmmsmwa wmlemm €-.a§:p?’aa33″: %4’&_’: KAQQNIMAKA &-HG?-i QQURT OF KARNfi9a”§’&K£«’b. HEGH C033? 0? E{ARN&TAKA HEGH COURT Oi” KflhRNA’¥”fit?(fia 3′-ZSQEH CQURT

As far as the conwntion of the gati::ionaer’s Cvungei

that mm is m: materiat be wtablish change under
4&8 at 128-B or any other offence is cangzerned, ?$v ”
he urge aii these zzcmtanticns before vt§°;e-trial v§_Ir’:,:e ‘

abservatians made herein ahcwe sha’l’%4.vn&i:T£:’::niez~.–

of trial Caurt deciding the can V’ ‘ 1 V-