in THE HIGH coum or KARKATMQ A1' EAEGALORE
DATES THIS THE 1 1th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
BEFORE & J __
THE HC}N'BLE MRJUSTICE sUBHAs:«;_§§-A:3~v:iV'_f V'
CRIMINAL PETITION NC§.¥§270.*§O_O?' % V : V'
BSHIVARAMA SHETFY,
gm. MAHABALA SHE"l"1"'I,
AGED MAJOR,
'I'£§..AK RQAD, .
KGPPA, CHIKAMAGALUR B1$Tr;z1(:'1*, g - AA *
. < *__,...PET1TI()NER'
(By, Qrwgkagé' A«3s<:§C£;g<;f,ES."VjA£ivs.;
AND: " A ' ' % %
JAYANTH $<::IMAR;§{
S/O.KOl2AC§A sHE';i"r'¥,t_ .4
SUBASH Roan; ' A *
KGPPA, «. --
CHIKAMAGAL;UR»D£S'FRECT. _
* - -. RESPON£)EN'i"
;___ {8:.;j S::i.AAK;<::.at...A,NDRA SHEKAR iaCHAR,ADV.]
1 ' 'FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
'i'I%'1"E_P'ETi'i'i€3NVEFEwV.T'VPRAYiNG '§'Hf&'I' THES HONBLE comm' MAY BE
' PLEASED '13HoLm1NG
_(;}RD'Ef.:' 09' THE JMFC. KCJPPA IN C.C.Nes. 4§4;200/
THIS PETITION GOMENG ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
V " ., }':OUR'E' MADE mg FQLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is accused before the irrjai Court He hadjfilsd an
application under Section 4:3 of the Indian
interalia for mfexring the: siglatune at EXP}
expert for identification. The lower CcifiMrf’9.tA_ {he Vcif’ b
complainant summoned the Manager 5;
signature with the specimen . .PW2–..1:1£~:5s that
Ex.P1A is the signatigrcx of ‘In cross
cxaxznilaaizion he has statcé aiso identified the
si%tt1re. He also’ slight difibrence,
but it is the cross examination.
hf: has Ex.P9 the specixncn
signaturei.-__ He: that, even. if there is difference,
however, it is..t1m signaifiis giithe accused.
I:_:1_ these Ciixiiimstances, Whflil there is evidence on
1vcco1;€i as verification of the signamre of the accused.
I dc. 1″:f>t reason for referring the matter to the
é The Txtial Court has rightly apprsciated the
V’ f.1:fza€te1*;…I:’1as” rejected the appiication. No gjvouncis 1:9 intsxfere.
‘4 F’stitio11 dismisses. Sd/_
Judge
» *AP/ –