High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramappa S/O Chandrappa … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Chandrappa … vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE I-iiGH COURT OF KA;2NAT5;i§fé;'A:'?.i'%:~f:  "' 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT..DIfI'ARWA'B :::'_';'.  
DATES THIS THE: 13% 93?  
B'E_F{§}RE ~_    .  'V '
THE) I~iON'BLE MR,JLrs*;fii(:fi;:_&.5M  35:30?
CRIMINAL REw{%§_10_1\:  "Nags 1 1  2005

BETWEEN:

Ramapfia.        

S j o Chax_1:ir%1p;$4   "
Khand&p*pan.aV;1r, 

R/0  "    
Nav2Jg1113{i¥.T"§7;e:{uk,'V':.4 _  '
i3ha:"+2s7a(%..'  =

.,.Petit:ione:r
(By Srié   Shetkar Advocates )

 ~

V'  The Statifizuf Karnataka,
 .=Re'p:*és¢é:1€éd,Vby the State Pubiic Prosscuter,
 . i~§';'g}:1'ce:§'u1ft offihaxwad.
'DhTa1wad".ff_ 

2. ixafipa V

 AA 3} 0 Silainmukappa

Am.arash£:§{y

  "Ma__§.t>r 1'/0 Baiioor,
'  ' Nava3gu1:z.c1 Taluk,
__fi3ha1:Waci District.

3 . Basanageuéa Geudappagouda
Hudeci S/0 Gioudappagouda

Huded, majopr 



Navalgumi Tsluik,

Dhazrwad Distzict. ... H'  t ' V'

(By 3:11 P H Gotkhindi HCGP, 333» wt: H.g}aci}fi§:1'.x$r"F'§c3§.p*  fm?.g§2-.,% 1* x

and R3) 

THIS CRIMINAL REVESION PETI'FI€fiN gls FILED
UNQER SECTION 401 OF...T§j?i'E 'z:;R1MINm,._ PFECKEEZDUREJ
CODE BY THE AI}V(}CA'_I'E ji3'O_R Tmf;s?ETIT10NER PRAYING
TO 331' ASIDE THE JUD.:};aaE}~:'r B'»AT.EEr. 25.3.2004 in SC
No.14/2003 E'I'C., '- _  i   

THIS ;*fiF%§1fQ'iINA=Z, :;Ié¥;wIS':'cj.':s:. .V 1§,$:}Ei*1T1oN COMING ON
FOR oRnERs1';j1A_;1;2ma3_ T}?£if3f,DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOij1{0§§§.?'I§\IG:"'---- .  '
        
  S605 of the Limitation Act,
1963,   examined as PW-1 in SC

 on {f1E:vfi1€«'Of the Fast Track 801111: at Bhaxwad

'   '1:h €:  'p§:t:.$en{ criminal revisien petitioner, is to

".;:$(3t:(1§>:iE§V'LjfE1§§:VV'€1elay of 628 :iay3 in filing 11113 Revision.

  quesiieiu the judgment dataeé 25.3.2004 of the

"  " 'F,;;stvV"Track Caurt, Dhaxwad, acquiitting respondents 12 and

3 of the casfliznce under S::c.302 of the Indian P6113} Code.

M

” V’ _ cefiiegtiong.

2. In thf; afficiavit, accompanying

except fer stating that the State has :1-at .. ‘:p,1;t§f%§:rr§;d

appeal, against the acquittal, whigch {Q i gt: ‘

of thfl applicant only in ‘i’.h€:_”;fI1OI1’1’i{.il_.(§f Augt1§§:,.. xfiixéfid L.

notice was gerved upon sr:c1;zf5::.. aigicle M06
and thereafter, madé ,_ lawyer, who
ogained that the made
anangemeng. particuiars

and daiesé day’s deiay is not

satis:fé1ct€§ii1y:,5’v’., ah:-3 Wrightiy contended by the
lcaxnc}; V [i’h:.=,:fi:t§’pondents 2 and .3 who have

fflegi, ‘V éiatfimsfit (.>1″V””c:;bjc:c:t.i<:)11s advancing the said

' VvCOI1$idB1'CEi opinion, the petitioner cannot

btgt iijfiauted with negligence, inaction arad lack of

"b0.1r;af'1 cVi'a:-rs. The a§p£icat:ion is accordmgiy rejecetci. As a

"V.c<§1ié:.equez1cc:, the revisicm pefition stands dismissed.

Sd/-* V
csg 9