13: THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNMAKA, BAr§¢{:iAi;:#I%E”
QATED THE 9.3″ DAY’ O}§’.:;»3’Lir~Le {2: G ‘{)§7(, 4%
BEFORE X
THE 1~1a1mLE MR. JUSTiCI§E¢.NAi§;E.YAN§x.:S§5§Aiv?f
camxnm ;s.:9pz.a.;,réc).5r>9/ace:-%
BETWEEN
1 SEIGNRAJUKV
i€ESIDIN§3;;¢;T;§;’Q_,2?”,. Q ‘
<:.M.H.R'oAD .»'¢_V L' " "
£NDIRfi®I.A(.3~AR"'ii§:.; ~ _ .
8ANA%GALOI-2.$~;3;8'%<.% – "
A APPELLANT
(By M/S DUA ASsc:;1%rE’,s;__ * ‘
z%ND
1′ j . A’§Rd€:Ess 951m
CARR;YINt’;’:_C>N BUSINESS AT
” _ }’:=J.C}.. ¥??’;~..5’1’H:v’CfROSS, C.E.S’I’REE’I’,
xggsamziazaem,
B;i#.N€}ALv€;3RE W 5&3 052 ‘K
REPRESENTED BY ITS PAWNERS
* ~ :;=R1 8:3 JAIPRMQASH
.SR: 13.8 RAJESH
SR1 3.3 SHAELENDRA
L RES?ON{)EN’i’
A ~{ BySR1 VIPIN KUMAR JAIN 5:, C N RAJU : ADVQCATES )
CRLA FILED U”/3378(4) CRRC. BY THE ADV. FOR
‘THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THI3 HONBLIS CCIURT MAY
BE’ PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE) JUBGMENT AND ORDER
\
M;
the guiit of the accused. On the C{)1’1tI’8I:V ,
have rebutted the presumption 11/
irlgedients that are requirad t0VQ0;1stiti1.t§S an o§E’%9E;c§§¢ ‘u/’$1; L»
of N I Act are not estabiished. is jigstified in
passing the impugned no Hi.1:1terf€r€1″1c;e
from this Court.
dismissed.
Armi