High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri G P Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri G P Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
.1.

xx mum HIGH counw or xaannmaxa Am 3a§aaa9§i5J7Q

nnmnn mums was 1" nnx or Manna, 29oéfF  3

35392;"

 

G.P.Recldy a/o  .  " -.
Reddy, 50 years, No.'é_99v/__3£}b--¢;  ..

46" Crass ,  9"ff' £4313," ' = 
5"' B1ock,"Jat3ga.nag"ar,§  _  
Bangalqraw-'ail; " _:      . . . PEEITIONER

(By sriPa:éimanabha 'Mah§la,§ sr. Counsel, for
vzafiaeace S&i;£;E;Anantha"=iahaa Maren?)

.".}."'.."-:
1.

The fitafie c:_1′:’ Iiarmitaica,
.12.,/by Hum’ ‘secratazy,

Eapfirtggpgnt,
A Vidhztua soucfiza,
2 BangaJ.ox_a.

Tvhe-“_’P9lV;’.’t:e Inspector ,.

_ spaci.-¢lT Enquiries, COD,

Carltén Bhavan,

3a_1;a.c.:e 3.99.4,

Bangalore . . . RESPONDENEBS

. EV”

“;”=.:(By Sri.H.T.Naxendra Praaad, HCGP)

!l.”h:I.s Writ Petition is filed under J\:r.’ta._226 5

227 cf The Constitution of India to quash the

4.

notice dated 23.2.2003 under tha..~«~~-.origin:é_1,.

mm’ oxura-C issued by 12-2.

This Petition is oonulngm on :Eor”

hearing in B-Group this day, t1*.a_ Court’ ” “tho
following: ‘. ;~2g’ I -.’ ”,’%~

9 V

Eetitionor £11’éa:_ potitionuy to quash

Annexure-C dated 2:3_.2′;’2=g$o£s~«..:V”vfigsguad by tha_

IREPBG-1′-Or Eofiflflolioo, As per
Annaxurazf-E: it ~ his V”‘v-lboon oallod upon to
agpeari”bai?:Giio«:’:the ‘;:Eor investigation
he tag ” to p__o¢_i.1_=.go __.’l.1 -..igin..l

“*”…….c’..2I.’.”.%1′.’.”.V”‘…’.’a_’.’ _’.1-!hon¥i:I”:%..’ir:-.=.=-.tte.-r was listed ‘I-*st*3.”éa-“,

Q2
0

if 6 1.1135 1 for

fpot:Ltionor’ this oourt felt that such notice

._o’o_nnot guéshed since petitioner has been asked

ton. appea}: A before the investigating officer for

the iipurposo of investigation. At that juncture,

‘coonso1 for the petitioner submitted that as per

v__3I.nnoxure–C petitioner ha: boon called upon to

produce records without giving details of the

3/

.3.

oomp.la:1.nt lodged against h.1..m and _._of.

documents to be produced before the .V1’nvos’o;Lgiatino’_o

officer. Therefore, it was -I
afied ifi ‘=1§-«A
to
fnrrush om-.a.1..’n.s tg… o ‘rfiotitfionor. ‘Accordingly,
iearned Govt. copy pf the
ooxmlaint naido by one
ttoufwtha furnishing of
copy vo.-_l_:f ” by Smt.V’a.aundhara
Rao, f not survives for

considoration;._ AV ” W

it this .____g_ta.go, learned senior oounaol

gp3aa_ring4:”‘~–.£or the petitioner aubmts that

been called upon by the Inspector

of” xaorziaai’ on 26.2.2008, since the said data has

.b¢a_an.”V–~esurp1red, if a time is given to the

” –..vpot§.tionar he would appear before the Inspector.

.. officer who is present before the oourt

8/

var: ‘ ..

.4.

submit: that petitioner may appear ,b§§§¢é; the:

investigating officer on 15.3.2008 at ii §ofiL}– j i.

4. Accordingly, this potitionu3ini’dia$iIagfl.i

petitioner is pannitteci ta ._ 5.ppaa: “‘i-:.:1::§.,

officer concerned on 15;3;§OO8 of ii n.fig.