-1- IN THE KIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF AUGUST. 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI V D" D
CRIMINAL PETITION No;;9égi2o}.o .;
BETWEEN:
Smt. Sarojamma
W/o Late. Boregowda
Aged about 43 years
R/ at Kfiowdagere Village .
Keragodu Hobli '
MandyaTa1uk _ V '
Mandya District. _. .' ....PETITIONER
{B€y.§\/I}? '8: , Advs.)
1 . State IV/iadi\aIz_iIet.D:VPLDDS” ” — ” ‘ «
Madiwalay D I
Bangalore.” ._
– y Srt.’Lakshmi ch§:id”‘ ‘V
» V Aged, ab.ou.t years
” S/oAG.é’o1;t11am’_C’,hand Jain
r Add/at:_’f3~h0p”No.111/6, Tm Main Road
Sflramapu; am
Béng*a,}o1*e”.
D D ‘ * Smt. Vvféahanfhaxnma
_ . Aged about 50 years
W/o Mariswamy Gowda
R/ at: Shanthamma Building
‘ 2*”! Floor. Varasiddi Vinayaka Layout
Hongasandra
Bangalore. …RESPONDEN’I’S
(By SI’i.HuEeppa Heroor <3: Sri. Marathi Goankar Advs. for R2}
-3-
claim. Considering the same. the learned Magistrate rejected the
application for interim custody of property bearing PF”
No.141 / 08, and ordered the interim custody of PF’
and 143/08.
4. The revisional Court though c;onsid’e:’.ed_the.iiia_tter”lon”‘.
merit found that, the revision is not Inaintainable,’v_as”i.t ‘is ‘oniyf
against the interlocutory orders andfldismissedglfiotlitlielplreyision
petitions. As against theseiyyo Oriderci; petition been
filed. C it C
5. Petitioner, lZif3′:i*ViVlNo.l42/08 and
143/08 and no§’clai_1n v”tyh:e,;Mathaji Bankers andwas
such the for release of PF No.142/08
and 143/08;’ 08 there was a claim and
found the said Vpropeity cannot be released. Accordingly,
‘theilapplicaifinoii partly allowed. Considering the reasons and
theC”pen’deney”of thglevihatter for trial, I find no merit in the case.
Aclcorvdingly, this petition is dismissed.
Self”
JUDGE
all C /-