Nagabushana Reddy vs State By Gowribidnur Rural Police on 9 April, 2008

PI'?

xm THE HIGH COURT OF RARNATAKA AT nnnanhonm
""*'*'E1: "HIS  9" DH.' QF .31.l-*RIL.- 299$
BEFURE
THE HDDVELE 3|-1R.JU5TICE R.H.NAIIC

ISRIMINAL Rmrxsxora PETITIUN 510.1435/2ooq#"f

I.

fl'
'El
Ififl-'..'»I~"fl"'rn T?xL?..'-K

2 HHA3KHR REDDY

SIB EREA nmnnv

NEED E5 'EEARS   V
mm KDTAPE4 _'V'I.LLAE1'E     - ;
a1MnuPuRA"mfiLUK "_ :~= Hm
mmnHna_FflApE$fi:= *

5 _ u .=j;A~. ;;§.~fET1T1oNEns
gm' ms.   1r::%VTVnJ,nc::3¢a*:~:::{$§::a.n1:a V_P.EED1f_§§,.;3.SST3. , Anvs. 1

an

fiflfi :

 

STATE gm: yzejwniaxnwun RURAL POLICE
VNvEEPRE£ENTED av STETE_PUELIC PRQSECUTOR.
 H1533 'E3IZ?U'fi}'P ('.1F.«_10'«.RI4PkTP;]{Fk

i2': *,v»_".","'_ ... RESPONDENT

£3?VEEI#5flEfiflfKgflhfiRLBIMATH; HCGP§
N 15 EILED

= rawzszoze 1=:r.-.’_r*:~:r
‘EJf3..:3§’.” “gF|..-“.”Ii'” 401 CR.P.C BY THE PETITIDNER3

“m.FEfi¥1fi$ THRT Tfilfi HGH’BLE CDURT H%¥ BE PLEASEE TD

S15′? .a.fi.3I13E THE JUDGIIENT OF (‘3E)NVICTII:J!-I DATED
, 12.7.2552 Pnsssn B? THE czvxa JUBGE{JR.BH} a
__–_mF(I.”.’,’.” GUIIIBM-IIJPL IN C.C.Nfl.93f2000 MID N430 THE

“J£JD{5MEt~3T HATED 16.1.2004 PASSED B’? THE F’T1TNE§Ti’RL

_”ss3s1mms amass, manna IN cnL.A.wa.43/3002.

9cQuv~Lu:l#–~-

htlultl Ur lu-lituunlnnn nu.-gai’ £’._;\:un.u vs -u-nun–n.u–. nu” . _……-.-. _. … ….._ –. ._.._ _ – ___.. – __ ____ _ _ __, W, W W4 _4 4 A M A 4

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION CGHING ON
3′ R. !’!!Ll.!l.’£.l!fi_’- T!-I15 Q1′, COURT MADE

U
FOLLOWING:

fl R D E fi

The learned counsel Io:”Wthat:pofii£i§fi§hs:H

gubmits that he does not’ ha§a_?ffi§ T£iia{v Tfi&j

Crimifial Rnv1g;gu Egt;t;g$V_1sA”d;sm§§§§&”*£db

2. The on-;e::$ sham in * .;:’eJ:Iira.i;1n:7,..yE::a:iiE:i<i ta the
trial Court_t& a%§ureitfie;p;§3pfic§"é£ the accused

ta sarvaH;p§ug§fifignéa}«?7'~ :

Iudg?