Shri Damodar Muttu Baliga vs Shri Ajit Gangadhar Shanbag on 3 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI)  
DATED THIS THE 3" DAY OF NGVEMBER  T VI «
BEFORE : E E 1 Q E"?  
THE H()N"'BLE MR.    5
cRL.MPg__g;. No,A2.i5E:48f/:20€)8' E E   E 

BETWEEN:

Shri.DamodarMu'.m;Balig;a 1.  ~  "
Age:66  _ ._ 
R10.      
Belga1un:~_.590.0Gl;;1.::_   "  _}'...Appcllant.

(By  

 T Sti;  Shanbag
 Age:  Business,
Rl9§"Belggu::;  590 006. ...Respendent.

 E    This crr.Appea1 is filad under Section 373 (1) & (4) of cmc.

*--,'prayi:_1g.t_o  leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated

" passed by the lmmw JMFC-H, Belgaum in CC
 "E}$io..VI_1_2}'2004; set aside the judgment and order dated 17.6.2008
 by the learned JMFC-II, Belgaum in C.C.No.ll2/2004;
  écmvict and sentence the respondent! for the ofibnce with which he

wjwas charged.

r’4*>”””

This Crl.Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Cgaetirt

delivered the following : – __ _V

IUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant ” ‘V

under Section 5 of Limitaizien Act seekiag;'”ee:idonat1§»_’_’l

11 days. Accepting the reasons

the said application is allowed fl1e.~Seid.l{ieli1″y_i_s eotidenedi.

2. I.A.l/08 filed_:’e;1deri~”Seefi.{m.”378él)_ Cr.P.c. is alse
allowed sworn to by the
appellant ia ‘appellant is granted leave to
prefer the [ [ A

. 3. present filed by the appellant ehallenging the

efu’I§se«.lfiipugned judgment and outer of acquittal dated

17 12/04 on the file of the learned JMFC

. 5; eequitting the respondent accused of the offence

All 379 of IPC.

(—~—-..S~””~*\_—-»—

4. Though this matter is listed today for

I.A.Nos.I & II/08, having regard to the natzvn-‘e”ef ‘A u

that flxis appeal can be disposed of wimeee%ieeeing e

respondent-accused and witheut the

the arguments of the learned cehneel and
perused the impugned of PWs.l

and 2 copies of which by the learned
counsel for the V’ V

5. The by the learned we — II,

Belganm, for thedeffeme 379 of IPC. The case of the
the was that he committed theft cf

eleeftie’eaiihpset,4he1eegieg to the appellant-eomplainant. In order to

the accused for the said ofienee. The

* fiieaeeeifion hasget examined PWJ complainant and PW2 Yallam

‘V and get marked Exs.P_l to P3. On aeiafion of the

seaaemxeee aeeemeemry eeseenee, the learned IMFC recorded his

1/ of acquittal. The State has not preferred any appwl against

_e….s «M -1_M,.

the order of acquittal. The appellant, being complainant .. V

case, has preferred this appeal. It is not in ‘A

complainant (who is appellant herein) was:

incident of alleged theft of his pumpsetflby ii ~’

this is the only evidence of PW .2 to the the
commission of the said mefi in his
evidence that his wife infermedihieniitheihghe stolen the

pumpset belonging But, the wife of

PW .2 has not been either she
been examed as a wimess “Tltzrefote, the
learned mm rightly regarded ‘-ifiediingeii of ecqlittal of the
aceusedin the judgment. Hence
the appeal of mm

55/’?

Judge