IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE '
DATED THIS THE 27'?" DAY OF JANUARY _
BEFORE
THE H_0N'BLE MR. J{}S'E'ICE Ir1UL:1UViAii}l_iG.:RAii3i'E'SEEiii
CRIMINAL REVISION Ri«i;*iiri'1Oi*~i M). 1' i'{);i~"--w2{Bfi0
Sri.K.I\/i.Naga1'aj,V '
S/0 Kotraiah, _ 4
C/0
Near , "
Hospet, 3 V
BeilaryiDistirierf, % E ...RET1TI0NER
(By M/s."M:ihiesh
AND; "
ii Qfiifiiiifiigtl'.iiiIE££i(2l,
__B:i11_.ga1E1Q'i*ea.i - ...RESPONDEN T
(By._Sri.A.V;'Reii"nakrishna, HCGP)
' A '"~._This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
ii . rfw 401 of Cr.P.C. praying £0 discharge the petitioner and
Eogdrop the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 13%/2{)0() pending on
-"the file of Addl. C.J (_}r.Dr1.) and }MFC, Kundzipur against the
" petiiioner herein. ~. 3/
39*:
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for adrnission
this day, the Court made the E'ol!t.)w'iiig:-- ' "
ORDER
Learned Government Pleadei’v-Es”directef,l to.taE<e_itotit§'e.
2. This revision is aga1ins”tztii’e order’c’lat’ed.=2.lg10 passed
by the Add]. Civil Judge ili(.uhdapu1’a in
rejecting the application for discharge in
A case’liw;1s”boolge’d..against the accusedwpetitioner for
the offencles__’pu,nishal5l.e “u1i_dei’ Sections 32, 34$ and 43(1) of the
‘_ Ka_r1i’atal_{a E.xcisie'”Ac_t,__vi_t appears. Lifter filing of the complaint
-wrhev.,4charge’ –sheet. the petitioner moved this Court under
Section Cr.P.C.! wherein this Court by order dated
l”..,2l.8.09,VV]§;as rejected the petition. Before the trial Court, when
” .the,_ shatter” was taken up for t’2’a1it1ii’i;_; of charge against the
V. …_accased_. an application filed under Section 227 r/w 239 of
Cr.P.C. seeking for dischz-ti’ge and the Sttmc came_.__to be
dismissed. Hence. this petition.
4. Heard the learned Counsel it”t)i'”‘i§1e l*;3et-:itiori1erV and’ the
learned Government Pleader. _
5. The contentiotfi. of Tithe. V”ic.:…_u71ietlp_ Counsel for the
petitioner is that the learned application of
mindlonly on {_llli!:Iu’:.lllildiltflllmlllall petition filed
under oi’ by this Courg
to dismiss the application
filed for pietitit)11ei’.
V _ 6:.”‘«ltiiie”s.ee’n that the learned Magistrate on the decisions
ref°e.1jred Vtol.il4)f..3/the petitionei’~accused has held that the said
i ‘”=__ii”‘citati()ns…¢ii’e not applicable to the on hand and that the
‘W. materials are seized from the l()l’E’}”‘ of the accused-
‘ ” “‘p’etitioner. ft has also noted the observation made by this Court
in the petition filed and acc(ii”dii1gj:ly, has t’orineti an opinion that
We
there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Though the
learned Magistrate relying upon the order pa,-issed by”thisf”L:CIezirt
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has come to the e«t.jhc.Eus.iiOn’i V’
dismissed the appiication filed see;i<;i11§___¥_"'i'e;' 'disc:'im_r'ge_,.f01'i the
present, the order of the learneci _Mz1gisti'zi'te c:1:1:j1 at ah ihdependent
conciusion on mérits, by the order
passed by
AeCti}’ciihgji-yt,iipeti 1-igiti disposed of’.
Gevetfiiheiit Pleader is perm_it’ted to file his
_ 1i’2e1_fi0s.t)i7ggippearzitjce within four weeks [tom today.
sdké
Judéfi