Satya Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 August, 2008

4Hi1§flEl3FGfi{CflJUFKFCflFIQMREHVTBQUK!EPEHURCHMDCflUE

mmn ms THE 1-: my 0? AUGUST 2003 % 

l3E$MMRE

ms: I-IONBLE xmwsncn no;-um  TJ

 

gamma rnnxnsu

Effi G.STAYhHhRAXhfiA
vznonam msaan, V1»,
TUMKUR. '~

 ,u_I'v"a;,'§ati?i6IIn

(By 5:1: swag gufiasxn r§sfifi, 3g§;;3"

1 THE swam; or xfififiamfixn"
REP. HT  $TPLTIUN,
mnmn Difi_'I'RI.C'3'.  '

   ..... 

. ~ V.r;;;;r3a1;2..f:-35:21:.

3_’fiamJUfiAwH5~”

A330 HUEIBHJB
§a1v3R,»’
, awn GROSS, JAIPURA,
“_ mumxuh.

‘”g ¢f-Hfinsauaran

* SIB xnnnnarzn

2 CLEAHER,
nmannnvn TEMPLE asnznn,
?BhhA?flR MADHUGIRI RQAD,

wmmm ~?A§U3£.

~ 1″ . an:-oiauw

{BY 3£’i:P’.M. RN32, A398. 3?? 1|

-n-up—-qua»

mxs came Is arm: wausez cn.1=.c a=:¢Ju._’:f”:u*r§.=.”V’~*r§JV’?’
QIIESK was mtccsznzuas In rsnszcamacasaaazaoa-as at-T:ma=
:5 as am em; as ms’:-arm cmmrsszouma 1*u}n;;::a~–.,.nzs;fz~,,

‘¥”L’iMKUF..

‘1’}-I18 mzraxm. P£’I’I’£’IO!i cmanG=.._on:;-wit éahafis “‘1*:%1:::-g

my, ma: comm mm m 8’O£aLOii2{l)1{§:

pemainsion of the Court pefiion.
mmm&¢%@fl@fiwm§nmmmam

__ to aesek appropriate

Ctgiflfijed ” ‘of. the document; produced

?5W§%h@?hm hWihn¢hfllh:nmumfl’m flu

true: copies ofthe same.

Sdfl-

Iudqe

‘ a . as