High Court Karnataka High Court

P A Subbaiah S/O Late P G Aiyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
P A Subbaiah S/O Late P G Aiyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi


:14 mm HIS!-I councr on xmmmmxn. AT ammom
DA’i’ED mxs mm 3′” may or my 2003

BE FORE

mm I-§ON’BLE rm. wsrxcz suncaasa B

cammnz nwxsron PETITIQI’ N-:’3~.216:5r2V<un)V"V§3"% :

BETWEEN :

P A SUBEAIAH
510 mm 2 G AIYAPPA
man as amps

am Bonmm VILMGE
Imsmmmm I-IOBLI
smfimngwr ‘:ALnx_j’
KCIDAGU 315231132′

. _FB2’J2’ITIOI~¥E11

EH9

mm srarz or u “rL§arz§;t:a ts’A

V4.23 .1.=,Q:,1cE
:«_m.’:Lm¢:1zI ‘ jz<onp;_u3U

T A . . . nnspoxmmw
11331 §1=;:x: !-fi§i$I2jI1$;?i'1i I-ICGP)

THIS ACRIZMINAL REVISION' PETITION IS FILED

.:4.Ta_2 CR.?.C. BY ME Anvoca-rm FOR THE
«PETEVTIGNER 91-warms mm.' mzs 1-zoN'nz.E CGURT my

133 <.PI.msEn TO nmncr ms: szssxoxs Jams,

—–1{0DAli’:’u-U AT HADIKERI TO RELEASE THE c>RI»:;ImL
nszns Bananas TO mm pmxmzwmn BEARING
Ho.4e7x95-96 mm 498/9.5-96 mam; HA9
REIGISTERBIJ BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR sommmm

WHICI-I ARE IN CASE N|3′.’}.SC.4′?1’99 TO Ti-E INTERIM
CUSTOBY OF THE BETITIfiNER.

Thia .renriain petition is coming on

achtxia :53. on
£03. landing:

GREEK

this day, the Cmnct madew

Third party filed an

cf Cx:.P.C. in 8.6. No.47V}’iL:L9€3_£? f 6z:_
the documsnts on J_.t§ha hfzhiat-, the
documents belong to V’ ‘.

2. The the accused
on the are fake stamp
papara. “filed chaxtgo sheet

and than m§t:«.1: e2: down far trial. The

neither he is the
‘&;r;c..A11 a”e’ciA fly:-::v’«.A.V?§1 r:»z;.u.:e:<:t«e:d with army offenae. The
"'éV'«–éu;é.I=.VV'V:roquirad fax: tho purpose or
'.__ 4t':;§1m§;§:?;i"f$#:h'§:;etween him and ether parties. It
$12E1u3iV'Vfi'ted that that documents were seized
seccsnd accuaad, who is a practicing
arm: the applicant had kept the

documant with than second manned.

3. The Court: bulaw hays rejected the
appliczatien at the petitioner on the

that if the documents are pledged to ‘

same would be tempered and uigo tr.n’rvé’f’..:§_’s~: 35 ii

goasibility at nan rec.-ovary i

4. If than transacting: is a >’Vg§hu’ina

traxzaaction anti the appliéatuit h,au'”-g?;:’tu:”n<$t;1iii1<';
ta dc: with the attenzse,'

be invalidated an thiei stamp

payer. V.a.*.s'"-'.V9fl.uE9""-sfarap papers are
canuernaél, ' the: .g-o on. 33.: fan: am

this tranu4§:i:2t:%ianV' }:_:«aA1._1V-%£'s«:.'s'-;=i*1 the agplicant and the

whul' azsa not accuwad and againat:

Vi4ho:uV"1m_"4u11§:9:'aticn is made, applicant: should

zzaavéifiaieu an apportunity ta produce such

_4m__'_4;:;az;}:e:i;n}. to prove that the transaction is

and the document is required for bone.

yuxpom. In these airmmatances, if

u"iwiI§ex:ty is. given tn» the accused to pzoduae

such material to prove genuineness of 'Eh!!!

mfiay'

transaction it wnuld anrve the punpose of the

petitioner. it is made clear that, if such fig

apylicatian is filed, the trial Court f§ °a

consider tha same on merit and p§§a "."

appropriate cxdaz. With ths3a"~ohsér¢§fiQfih;} H

the xeviaion petition studs dig§§£$d:éf} V:" 'yT

""3 sat'?