A K Sukumar vs A M Venkatesh on 27 February, 2009

Iv-I V-vunv vi l\I'\I\i"lP'\I.P\l\I'| |"'lI\3!'l VEJUKF UP" BHKNHIHKH l"I":I'! RUUKF ur IKAKNAIHRA HIUI1 LUUI

I CrLA..$fl0O3

IN The H191 COURT 0? mR:~un.T.aa<p.,. BANC-'ALGRE;

axreu THIS on THE 27 TH DAY OF % 

BEFORE

THE HoN'aLE MR. JUSTICE L. { 

cam no % QF 
BETWEEN   L
A.i(. sunmn   T
Aw: Aeouresvsaas, -- A     
SIO.A.N.!{!'v§'I" FABRICATKJP5,
(MILK mm} -

 % -vAVAL'A!'|fiL.LI;"'
« %   ms-:7,

 f   {Bit Sm AC. PATIL , Advme)

TNS CRIMIM.L APPEAL IS FILEQ UIS.398 CFvLP.C. BY

THE AQVOCATE FOR THE APPEL¥..A|'4T PRAYING THAT THIS
HOWBLE CGUR'T MAY BE PLEASEEJ TO SET ASIDE THE

IMPUEJEB QRDER QATED 26.9.2002 PASSED BY THE XIX
ADQL. (LC. 8:. 5.3., EANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NE)..31f2W2



""" ' '*"""'\'fV..'~{I' nnanwunlsn HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKI-'I HIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA I-IIUH LUUKI Ur RAKNHIABH rllun \...\..Iun

2 Crl.&.36u'NCB

PASSED av THE m 9.90%.. C.M.M., BAf4Cifi.LORE.g"«--.»IN
c.c.No.m3912eo:3, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT],    k "  

ACCUSEB FORTHE orr-Esucs PUNISHABLE uys 13sm.:.; %%

This Appad caning an for V

pmsed Ihe following:

The appellant am-éfi of the
was
Hana; %

Judge