High Court Karnataka High Court

K J Gundappa S/O K.P. Joyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K J Gundappa S/O K.P. Joyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala


?é1H€%a’J-‘V¢”‘i€z wwwfii WT mmmwmmmfim MWM £0113? Qfi mmmmm MIQM mum

3′? mm mm-1 seam OF’ KARI€ATAK!& AT T 1, A
mmn ms Tim 9%: mvm * { 7

E”?-§ §~IU&fii’BL£ m.3;.a¥;CéFjé§§’%;a:-ygxtf-;m%;g*fse§:;a
zzmmaz.

BETWEEH T4   'V

 

K..J.GUNDAPEéA.  _    ' 
Sm    

R.G$fi A£sQLrf§”i:aa=;f2’E;£;R%;£;’-VMA .%
Afifiifififlfilfiigr * *
am KE§SIJR?B¥;§R.§3’flJ$E.GE._ .
3€32§i%&7RP’ET’Tfi§:2.I}§{ %
imzzaam’ z;§:sfm’§m’» % %

‘. , ?E’E?E’i$§EE?

– A_fE””2’V_:’$.;iE§¢_E{:.I5§.}i£fi;1fl§}§?»i;¥;f€’i’?{A%Yfix )9 mxmamg

BY~5§»’C3fi§§iR§”7’£§T PGLEE SE’.€~”LTI§H

A Q ~ Kf}DA{§~U’ §}I3TRI{§T
~ ‘BY-VS’£’.e¥i”V!£ mama: PROSECUTQR
¢ »jE}£EjGI-I’-~€%R”I’ OF K.AF2I€ATAKA
J%aa§I:::aL0RE

RESPC3fi’DE?§’T

x % ” {By Sfi.B.B IfiA§ HCGP)

Lifigfilli IaJ’fi4iVt..§9}-Llmn-nut

N ‘mwwmm W ..mmmmm mw hwwfii W mmmmm mmw mm§&”§” W %&%§f’w.5,§7%”3w§%.K& MW qmuw

ms getitimi is ma undcr Smt¥1o:1V__€§3;*2#;’i3;r;P*.{§.’

prayhzg tn mlarge fin §etit$r;ma:21′ :

{I£.?*¥:3.4-‘?2fS8 (flR..2’fa.4’?f{‘.E mi’ A’
an the file eftirne 9
ragisterad far tm crfikm pu:fi;|§habE.e_vz3n&e:ri.3;+:¢:t:i;9n £3613″

amlfifll effifi.

This petifinrz ding.-*, the
Gear: made 1:113 foHs’wi.:ig: . ” V.

Swtiza:i.:f%3f:¥3.A in c.mzs.+?2.:2o3 on
1&3 5% far the afimms puniahable

EC.

far thxz pefifisnw aubmkm that
an mix as tk a1@t:inn awzm’ 1:

ks:-.-52 ws;s %&n1y rm: than: mmm tmdar Smtiszm $31 me. It
% submixm am the mam has? nmm of
V . arfi he was sufcming fiwam $¢hmpmen.isz for
% ~ tha mt sh: years mg the pmmm has been falwly

Ezmgfiazzamd.

1

\»\_/.

M wuwam emmwma WWMWWK ?.~””a\%”¥I.§”‘¢\§W锑3l§§””\W~5″”5» WEWW

3, Lgamm HCGP submim ”

wimmaas ta establish timt the

bmmer at dmmsaa Raghigr

fiazi mative we mmnit the as the
éawmé was aefiéfiad had
mm the Iammm and with
that nmfive :31: aleeeasvad with
an stzzane anfi ‘the pi’?

_a*sat:men£.

4. rm ciimczt: avidmce but am

‘**’~*’~*en xmord comxmm the pet%n:er

: f;.f:1.§;1ishab1e unfier Smticsn 302 am am} at

t Era said that yam’ firm’ mm £5 mt

3%d-:3 9<*£.»1't i~a.$

fact that tha petitioner is; mam' fined in
' sf a mag: and hsirsmus efiaztm, the

$5 mt mztiflw far mil. Isaeee rm gmcé gmuné in

dis-belism tkm case af the prosmutiwn.

L

.iI£'_'ImE U I…resn._no. mu. "m. …. ..

5. In ths result, the wtifinn Eam
mmby Sd/-It ‘ ‘ .

Ebb! –

2&3 333333 §_§_:§ o%.§s..3§:§f§n .739 ..§_.xe..§……. u..E,u=a a I….