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