Rasheed K V vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rasheed K V vs State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


The petitioners am arrayed. as .

C.C.No. 16212008, pending txial fgrum 9_fi’€:11¢é$’ ;§:;.aishab1cF% * V

under sectiezl 104(A) of the Karnata }:a

144, 165 of the Kaxtnataka Fo1r2ét«.I§u3c§’r/’iv
They are seeking a direction 438

2. I have heard thé petitioners and

the learned Addl.

3l. The X ffor petitioners taking me
through t.’%’1::t: fiu;i’s:_f’iV1.:’.1f<)1'131at:io11 would submit that

pefifiqinczs '-.:;1Vdt in the first information-; the

section 173(5) Cr.P.C., do not

of petitioners. Thertcforc, there are

3caS@;3ab!t~ to believe that petitioners am not guilty

' " ' ~ . 'eaf offences.

– 2;. The lcamcd Addl. State Public Prosecutor taldng me

x the statement of one Poonacha recorded under

” section 161 Cr.P.C.., would submit that said Poenacha has



stated that petitioners were found cutting bets ates sta:fi3’igg

in the land of one Ganapathi.

5. The petitioners have sough¢;….fo_xf a ” ”

section 438 Cr.P.C.

6. There is no materi§§}'<–..gn 1"ec<$rdV that

petitioners are falseiy implicate§§_¥'V"'F§1e:e mesons to
believe that the above Peenayfia a statement
to faisely implicate thevA.pefifiofieA1fe. liwegaxti to the

end of ofiences,
the custevriiéx}. ipetitione1's cannot be denied.

Therefore, "for wider sectioxl 438 Cr.P.C.,

* ….. .. «

V I pass the following»
_"_ ,_ee¢ ORDER
is dismissed. ._



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information