IN ; - _; 7;
IN THE HIGH CCURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2977' DAY OF JULY 2009
BEFORE
THE £~iON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH BAD!
cmnmw. pnmflou No.947g@ 2 f »
BETWEEN: '
J.'I'.Radhakn'shna,
S] 0 J.'I'hippesWa.my, 1
Hindu, aged about 45 years,
Driver, R / 0 Hangal Village,
Molakalmuru Taiuk, ' __ V . _ '
Chitradurga. L. » " , _.. ;*PE'I'I'F10NER
(By Sri.'I'.Jayaprakash, Adv;
AND:
1»: State by % A - _ %
Molakulmtiam .'{--'oli<:eV' v_ __ .. RESPONDENT
(By Sfigiionfiéppa. ma
V Petrmon is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
;$zi1yi:tg«to”~$£::t3_a$ix*3xé the judgment passed by the c..:. (JR.DN.) Gs
JMF'{3.,”VMo]ak:t_hxiun1, in C.C.No.239/06 on 123.06 and the order
by” Prl.S.J., Chitxatiurga, in Crl.RP.No.39/06,
‘dated.13., 12.06 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by
‘ ‘ ” ‘T 1 ‘ –._tt1e_AJMFC;»,.. Molakahnuru.
% Petition coming on for adn1ismon’ this day, the Court
the following:
“accused.
oxnxn V
Petitioner is seeking setting aside of the –‘ in
C.C.No.239/2006 dated 12.7.2005 and the oxfiér fay’ ‘the
leatncd Sessions Judge .Vjda¢¢’a A’
Cr]. R.P.No.39/ 2006.
2. A case was ‘tJ_1V_e’ sin Cfinc
No.90/2006 for an ofi.-$11.9: ” Sécfibns 279, 337
of we read with secn”o§:gV%i’ehic1es Act. Bcfom
the learned guilty and based
on which I16 in the revision petition, it
is Telugu speaking area and
he wa§,;;o§; which was cxphined to him.
This aspé{§’t..(§f thgé’ Qas considered by the icarned Sessions
, ‘_ p¢r11§.iI1g,Hth_¢VIeoords, found that, the petitioner is finm
which is the part of the Karnataka S135: and
V case is not that. he does not know Kanma
V V –V hflicmly because he is from Telcgu speaking area, that
is not a gmtmfi T to hold that the charge was not
to him in the language and Words uown to the
In this regard. the revisional court also verified the
vakalath signed by the petitioner and found that the vakalath.
which is in English, has been translated into Kannada language.
3. Considcxing the circumstances and also oonsideringthg
pleading g1u’1ty by the petitioner and such objection .,
been raised when the charge was fiamfid. both the H
C()1′.1C11ITC}11′.ly held against the petition-:r,~ no V
illterfercncc.
Accoxdingly. I find no mason
The petition fails and same is 2 A ‘ V