High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Lalitha Rao Sahib vs Office Of The Inspector Of Legal … on 2 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Lalitha Rao Sahib vs Office Of The Inspector Of Legal … on 2 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda


2, 5&5;-sistani Controller
Lega}. fiiauviegr
Hubli Cizcle, Mehfia Chambers
Goyanksppa Rotad
Kashwapnr, Hubli – 23

(By Srzi. Anand Nava1gimath,5}i’€’_}GP} A

This Cziminal F3§*’igfl._ is; ‘fi1é:i=’L’v1§.§1d>cr Section 482 {if
Cr.P’.(3 praying to quash fig fiéfiéiglg on the file
cf the JMFC~§,.}-§ 11bi:£ :13 ;§:o.7?9;.2;:0a; ”

This” adfimimion this day,’ the

cgmmgdg rgggawgngg

V_ The G~€;vf.”‘$dvr:mate is ciirecicci ta take natice

‘ _ f0%f__fe3g.393:1:i@nts Nov.-~1’«and 2.

V T. is listed for a§m3’.sszion.. With the

ézatgififiznt ‘bi’: Calmsei far paxtiesg the matter is takexx

up fiisfial.

V’ * 3. Tka iaamecl trial! Judge has takan C§ €€ and

VA V’ gfssusé proczss is accused far an afienca punishable under

rx.>..a§v~9*v*~*J3«~»«

% V’

Section 138 «sf Negotiabie II1StI’ti1}Z1€1’11£S AC1: as

S’i.113?8II1OI1$ served on petitioz1&r.- V p

4′ 013. ptrusa]. af szrompiaint,

filed against pctiticzmr for Cr§fi:ravef1t.if§z’; $9 of VV

Sta11darcis sf Weights 3:11:31 I3agkag e£i”Cc3fi£modities)

Rules, 197′? ;.’ss:nishabl;§ $12_[fi<c'x',E:zii pf Standaxds of

E52:-fights and Mafasures 3 ~

5: égfiiplaint, the learned

effiéévnotc put up by the Chief
ministefiai officefi, ' thus:

_” C)£fé1;c€’ ¥}_/’:se:A€::._ ?.2′ S1:ax1::ia1’ds Wtzights 6:; Maasurss

Act; Cofip!a§::1:§.Huh1i has submitted a compliant an

_ V’ Ciré;*gée.h€at against the above said accused for the

‘ Avpignishable U/S€?C.7Q Standard Wfiights &

“= M@a$V-“é1;*e:§ Act, Accusaé released, (31: baii. Hausa

far csrégr, Pemseé ihfi Racozfls. Cagfiizance

A <_§:f,_€he ofiénce is taken against the accused far the

VV " Off(€I}43€S gzsunishabie 1:1/Sec, 'F2 Stazléiard Weights 6:.

H Measums Act Offica to resgistar the case in Register

No.11'! (iilimigaai) issue snmmoius to tha accuaeci. Call

on 2?. 33.2038"

IV. céam WA. ,

on presfintatian of somplejnt, even withsut ”

the: averments ef camgalaint and Gfifgnces a}3ég逧«:t;’3c€reit:,V has; V’ »

enciersztd ths office meta and i$s’!;;ed:_”1::r§)cé;~:s. ‘A15’ péfiéicigar.

Thztmfore, the imgugned o1w::1:~éVz*’s::§n13.%i’v’§’»-.1:-‘<V?*: suszr;;i L:§:d..

3. In the msult, ;–i.z§as$&.t}1’b–§’§§11{$*ér:i33g: ”

The -as ‘-it :life1g£_1a$s to petiiicner is set
asicie. _’_I’hg::_ ‘:12_éi£:£S17,__is_ tgilxe icarned Magistrate far
:*ecc;3:1.*:ssi;ieré:f_§(§i:’V fgtjiéxfiaic’ of presentafion of cemplaint in

accorda£fi:{:§’1xzit:1::V’1:aVxrE.AVA’ »– ‘ ‘
JUDGE