High Court Karnataka High Court

M Raju S/O Mahadevu vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M Raju S/O Mahadevu vs State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi


Myso;-3 ” . _
v ,Rep.fb§.’ State,Publ£c”Press:«cutcr

5AN’&3AL’QFifi_.’ .. Rgspomagrgr

.Cr*.F-.’,§3. praying to set aside the fiuégment and senfence dt.13.12I.20{.}5

” “«.,:i’::as;seié_. by the P.O., FTC-fit; Mysere in Gr¥fi;.Na.93s’2£}05 and the

_ jssdgment and sentence dt,’¥?.8.20B5 pas$eé by the JMFC-E! Geufi,
” Myisere in C.CfiNo.295f2903 and acquét the petiticsraers.

made the foiiowingr

_ ii’; THE é-E§$%-1 QQQRT <3?" KARNATAKA AT BANGALCRE
swag "mes we 39*?' mv om MAY 2608
BEFQRE T _
1'9»-as HQ£\J'B¥.E MRJUSTSQE s:.;aHAsH s5;g;é2'j%k*%j%V"Lj'~A{:4

SETEMEEN:

3. §%A,Ra,§L;. Ageci abeui 48 years
Sic Mahadevu

2. Sn:zt.Kuma:§,A§ed about.._3§§ye;’ars;;’V “

Wio Nifiaju   
Beth 3:3 residingat   '
S.§\fo.2308,2"d¢fi.'3f<::.ss ' %
vinayakanagééra    4'   
Mysere,    "   ?§T!'%'§QN§!2%

{By sri.9.%a%..Ra;%uv…%géd%;’;}V%% MA
AND: f

State of Kéfnaiaka .A . V
E3}! Jayaiak$hm§.puram ‘?c:!i~r;e ”

High Vbnunit :”r-3.«ui¥éing

{H353′.VS:*§.’§¥xai%:§é§§j§§: xgma;-é ;-ace?)

T’§1§s i~C:§m§:3a% Revision Petitien is fésed made: Sesééma 39?{3)

This Revafsécn Petition earning an fer Hearing théa 333:. the Cam

tézee hsuse. the aaczssgeé had occarzied the beam and the amused N03
restrained PW4 fyom enteréag the muse. Accused E\1cs.42..Ea»s_3g’c:iT.3 50$:
agsaugzea PW-4 arzé aisa 9w»; Thsugh they u-gem ma

nathéng much has beer: eiésited in the said .:2:2*¥_.§§*§a;$;i§<3~'z'::;' .

9. The Ieazrsed Magistrate an a§2:ss*e:_:%at§?§n”§’t%§é- 9:”-V’§i’3f’§’?C§¥3;v’ has

ffiiéfié that the materiai cségeciecé by ‘rije pfésgéution :::r§;3*>;j§;e§.:’-.4_V_t:§’se’_i%;Lz’.%V%’:
253:5 is aenfifmed E33: the Sessions _E=.:a:e7r’:- fc c21f’;::;;ntions of the
warned Gourmet fer the pei:iiia.::e§§}%z§j;e1A §§.V=,;vvL’a;r;sp:’ecfé’£:§edVA,vv it amounts :9
reuapprecéating the ev§dence:§ra§i_VE:;:iéf§%rin–§.:¥.%;§§ij~ mncurrené findings
cf bath the ce:g:ts:«.§qfé%aw::A__%n .:’J2’ex:Eé«i}£:#%é9:i,”–….§§§w§ver, imkéag mtg me
relatianship a=i§:’§j;::ad”i{§’r:§ Enta the eariier éispute. fihe
sentencg iésifigh-%d&’M’$§Esi;ate scald be 5ed:.sz:~e§. lsastead
ef seniefige ‘aéf eeL:¥d be madiféed ta that as’? fine by

enhaacérsg t§§e__f?’E:-we fiadisrzt’. my view. the ends at éustice would be

_ ma: b§{.’n§6{§ify§ngVnthéésvggfggézzte impesed by the Magistmte.

A ‘v%gs.m§:ai:%n§§y;. the Revision Petition E3 partiy ailcwed. The

cbirwittéon i$’*?.é;:ra?f%rmed. However, a3 gegards is seniersce of cane year

gs.:. $5: 3:: gfieface punishable under sectien 324 read with Sectian 34

],;;.P’c*Tssucgzécegnea. the accused shafl ¥iab§e is pay a fine of Rs.1,GQ01-

— each. ‘A

§<Nia§;'- '3

'Judy?