k .2:’s_.m:”.:u\{Ar:-DA’,
” CRLv£A’.’NO.i?E§éV3Al’i2.C}fi¥3′ V’
BEIWEEN:
Ratmappa, fjadaigig
Age abQ1}VtT66″y_éaf:~g_ ‘ ‘
Occu;3:atjon:A 4G0V€IjI’iInC13.t Servant,
‘I’a}uka ;_ H1i1ng11:id’,:”-£}i3§: ‘Bagamot. .. APPELLANT
(By Sri V; M.’_Sh eeIvafi1″;.’ Agiizpéatc)
A ‘ ‘ V _ _ 1.* The xfi~dmin.§si3ative Oficer,
V 2:-1id._ Sessions Court,
2. ‘.’:?’.$’1cait:’-. ().f Kéxnataka,
Repmsantczi by its Special Puhiic
” AA Pmsécutor, High Court of Karnataka,
” _ _Ci;-xzuit Bench, Dhaxwad. …i32ESPONDEN’I’S
(ésy Sri P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP)
* iris
This appeal is filed under Section 341 cue…
to set-aside the order dated 30.3.2007′ passed.~;i,5, it
Bagalkot directing the 1″ Civil Judge (S1*.’D’1:i*.): v'{;JM_, i” V
Bagalkot, for gving false evidence’ agamgtti’*rhe.i%appen@:.tiA
Crl.Misc.No.35/ 2007 and the dategi
filed in C.C.No.3{}.2007 on thefiied of iP:1._{<::v.§Ii :J:1'cige"'(~Sr'°. any i
and CJM, Bagaikot, against such
other reliefs as deemed ef the case.
This appeal comii3.g..t}13.. clay, the Court
delivered the foiiaygreingz t .
(5i>jeetiensViVt<;i'IA{I;2O0t3—fiiedt.
X _}rIea1'€i." the ffietiizlstance, petitioner] appellant had
V' i.,:o=:vision against the impugned order and
i __ sii;b$eqtie:1t1_
Ema.
re;fg?liseé that he should have filed 21 Criminal
A
appeai. Themjtfere, he withdrew the zevision petaitjon and fileé
iV._t11e appeal. Thus, mtifionerl appeiiant was
“if “_p1eeeeuti:ng the petition] appeal under bonafide immession.
i Tgaking this fact into ecnsicleration, the deiay in filing the
,, appeal is condoned. N V g tw_
2. Appellaxzt was the complainant
No.1/2004 on the file of Special Jtgdge
trial, complainant turned hostile éaqlxd igsve e’e/zjchfilejtice
to averments of first infonzaajjon Vlogllgedl I:-zyl’ ;
conclusion of trial, the en opinion
that appellant has #33)’ Wideilce
contraxy to the eontente lodged by him.
The leareed appellant to show
cause as tci r for an offence of
3; _ ‘i’1}en:fora:f qa _W’:.*it§_¢n complaint ,\ by the Chief
Administrafive ‘vOfii’eer’–._of the District Court, Bagalkat was
u ma,§i’t33:.o§rer te C..ll§’M….{;ourt at Bagalkot on the basis of which
_ ‘\;a.«,=%§=v§
-issued to the complainant for an offence
–}ifi’der Section 193 I.P.C. The appellant has
‘V zftlashjng the pmceedings.
H = The learned Counsel for appellant has made
‘?
V’ we owmg su mlssxons am’
the first information. it is aiso not in dispuie
course of evidence, he had disowned the.’avei.r:§r;e1iéts of ihe
f.1’St informafion. Therefore, the,’ shéowf-eo,_ea:;se
notice are suficient to appr;-:.is4_e the” ;
ofoifence committed by him. V ‘V V’ 1
17. The learned has relied on the
judgment reported in A32 j1973js_c: ‘to contend, the
relevant iieitness in regard to
which he gig «iigieeueegi perjury shouid be
specifieally éznnexed to Show cause notice
to enabie the iacciiseadiito the change.
the on hand, appellant was the first
Case No.1 / 2004. In the show cause notice,
it’ie”elea_f1y.V-iisfeied, appellant has given evidence giving a go»
«V by of fixst information. Therefore, no prejudice
N ‘A caused to appellant. In the circumstances, what
heki in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to
case.
9. The submission of the learned Counsel
that the learned trial Judge should have rormgéé
that appeflant had intentionally fihae fio
basis. The intenfion of appcflaxifi .
conduct. His intention was €o~.§étve theV’agc’u.ge¢3,. i’cé’11’ned
Sessions Judge at the. .conc111séofi–.of-. trial, ” has an
opinion that appellant n false evidence
Ԥto save the accused.
wpellam has not ‘punishable under
Sastbn 193 I.P.C. any merit in the
Accoxyfifigiki ihc is ‘iriismiwed at the stag of
admgsioig. ‘ ~. , 1
Judge
