IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEB THIS THE 9"' my OF SEFTEMBER 2002f Q T 2» _ u
BEFORE 'A "
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARALI 4NA{}:XR;5j;v. % k
CB1,.R.E M0.9§§[2Q £)§ J X. 9
BETWEEN:
Krishna Murthy @ Murtlgy,
Sfo. Mahabala Rae, V " *
R10. 83' Cross, ._ V
Bapujinagara, % a
Shimoga - '--....,_PétiIiOIi€l'.
(By S:f i.N_; Adv.)
AND: _ . , , .,
Stmje V
' Byfioddapqt Policé """
. Sb.i_r:1og&, __ ...Respcndent.
%(1k3%_s,rks:-i.A;s.I. HCGP)
is filed under Section 397 uf C:'.P'.C. praying to
""'T.' v%;£%£.VV'2':.=;ide thewjrder dated 11.8.2005 in Crl.A.No.82/01, passed by
.V an£i--.,S.J, Shimoga, dismissing the said appeal No.82/'01 for
n§};}~p§Gs-seutian and remand back the same to dispose of an merits.
' f """'€£'his C:'l.R.P corniag on for orders aicmg with I.A.If()8 this
wday, the Court made the following : -
¢~___r~v-------\.,-
ORDER
Theugh this matter is listed today for he_a.ri_;2g..on
l.A.I/O8 filed by the petitioner-accused
of delay of 1022 days in filing the pIT€3.S_(‘_3I1t ” ‘V 2
and I.A.II/O8 filed by him seel<:i.11g "V
imposed on him by the Trial the up'-l'
far final disposal by consent of Counséél for me
petitinncr and also the .
2. pgeruseal “éfildavit sworn ta by the
petitioner vxign llflof seeking condonation of
delay. 11;’ is sta}fner med Crl.Appeal No.82/2001 and the
V was before the II Add}. FTC, Sllimoga and that
‘ ” i.”l1s:Vk’hadL efigéged one Sri. Gopinath, Advocate for filing the
and, the said Advocate had told him that he
keep him irlfermed of the stage of the said appeal, but
xhéldid not do so. It is further stated in the said appeal that
%’
(\-“”””*’
the petitioner was waiting for the result of the appeal for
years together, but he was not informed of
the result of the said appea} by his said
recently the police came to his houee””i:1’march hhiznenéi.
then he went to Shimoga ..
said appeal was dismissed nonapreetteiition on
11.8.2005. Stating the ahove rem the .¢.e.m.eyhas prayed
for condonation of delay of in filing the
present revision
3. offered by the petitioner
in the said hereby allowed and the said
gielay _the present revision petition is
eo;1doI1ed_ ..”‘peu’tioner has been convicted by the Trial
1999 for the offence under
Seeitiozik: IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
{he same was challenged by 113131 before the said Fast
freak Court. Since the said appeal was not disposed of en.
(“**~….5*-“”*”””_’