High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mohan Kumar Alias Satish vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 25 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan Kumar Alias Satish vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 25 March, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
'J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

 

1 Eu: 1.I'n'Iu-an 'I?'-rnvnur «Hug...  V
4: nu.» .|.1r,au-nun l\-HI_n|l'.£'-'l- V. » .

Sufi:-11. 32 yam' %

sro      T    

2. Enmflmjmxm. a%, ycaf I--  A

Win      % 

Bo&1ar§'R1a:_'Iid_¢'Iita:6.f  
No.«45,9, 12"   

 ._ '\ir';n.a.i:%ofiC?norfi'Rea:;i_%& .



 036

{:3
£4
E.
3'
3,
F2-
Ian'!
I.
Ii
I

.15».
5'
9%
3
I'
V 3.
D
5
1
tan
in
3

 '"fi_.1. __.. n-_:.:|:_..... .n.r.. mnn-am
1::-um. am: as in nu. u.u:.uu;

 71"w cmn,1 Fla-or

_.I

Q



hi

5"' Block. Raiajinaaar

...'!...._..

Biiffiaiolv-W  Fun. 1J.IG1Vn.n3~--___

(B)? Shri. C. V. Naseuh, Advocate)

AND:

1.

B3

   Hana LUIS
No.1, Slui. and Shri. L. Sudhanhan,
Advocamfpr Raqp§:md?axt"Nd.2)

 4'1'1f'fifi"",1Gmup this day, the Court made the: following: .

__ or- 7-
11:911.!-entaahvim

Iv"roII-r-Iv w'

Sqcge'm.ry,Lap_svDeparunezu 

I . ~_ '

Major.No.131%*;_ i'   
5§{:um_ ckfififififiaEaf'   Va' : "

Bw1ga1ore«99§ 1; * A REBPONDENTS

.._J-.. .E_....

-L-L-L.LuL
V uuvww

   in filedunclar Arlicle: 226 and 227 of
  India p.raying to qualh' the noiificafim

Z   rl-aim! 3 'F"m_fl'}'ia111nrlkuH1nm¢nnndnnfnn1 i a A
'I$*U'I| E!!! I I3?! 'I31 I'4IUWXY'T' NF} XIV' CVIIIPHGITTIIIV JIIRFII LI?!' O 11

%V  _ as.  and unjust.

AA  Iii':-it 'Damian «amino mu Far D1-slim-innnr I-'I'
 -"O" . mm "W? H" m 1 .mm' mw

R"f:""'t

mn11~nA

KIT? 5 Q

"N0 in



LIB

QB.D.E.B

The petition coming on fin'  

.. ,.____.h.

group} iii?    éispolai.

"2.  the  fbrthe  7

Government Advocate.

3. The mt: alleged   dtévaocusod

 

ommm  493-A, 323, 506 read with

34 of me       3 mi

4 of um. um  % man Act. 1951. The pouumm

 $52,? an mg vimj... at f' 11.a_ms.n'eI.!..I1.t by me

 L»  and at the bdmt and instance of their

   aamanfi», m... mm are mm against am. That the

 "  'fiu"@'a-3 3a..u.I.-U1. :.vl_.u.'IiIIlIIuu.w

-:III1:.nII nnuuu-aniud in 1-1:' naflaufluun' an Inn: Du-u 1:11

   who was attnohodto um omoomud Court. In this

 of afifain, the second respondent was qncially

appom” ‘ ‘Wand as 3 Speciai ‘F-ifiiic to omdiictfno case

(‘3?

@

on behalf of the proaeeufleu. It tmmpixes that such
appaintrmnt is made at the behest of the wife of

4Iu..|rIuivhH’|$” an a annual; in Ha; T an: ‘ u

1I\|l~l.|~l.hI.L J» ‘WEI. ll «ILWHU I-K3 HIV :__ LVI-IuI”a”J».

Gcwemtnent of Karnataka and suc7h~appomnu_ ‘ 1’

mechaninallgr without assigning any

F1

‘backg1tr1n1ae”ee”m.aI’e e etpe “‘n’dn{ii.med hefc’:me’.mm~” -.

4. The Counsel for the in an

in 2005 “”” T’ ‘ opined as follows:
“A ‘ could be
pggpamnd 1}vhe’z’¢ giublic iunrur dmmda.

{pasta} circunmmcu

agpommmz The mere fact
in a _naa-Iicular can are

a fmding criminal lawyer afam

» be Q gm:-.:.n.d 1;: ebgzg .Sp«!t.’!i’!! Pg-blig

ammo: in qnpaimbd’ will a vicw to soar:
aamrtc’ tian ataii cam’ . Tin mid’ qfiic.-«I shaman!’ ‘ ‘

not In pan-mirmi in Be ricgum-albtf bub a
Iegaiimi mam fbr wrcaiamg

vengvmce. ”

5-

IM. -II-I Ill-LE \”U:I.Iul

E

“‘ If» II-|¥IW-. Iltfllélllu ,

Public Pr-mentor. an the
assigning valid magma, gag _>»Cofi’:AA:I;1 would
ruhmit that W
cane, ainca nq of a
smoial ranges: was rnndn

mrv- _ ‘VI -unnu—rw

by the fif Counael would also

place mfimgu in Mukul Dam and others vs.

III? Iflllu

cmofthiscom-t.

A. %(3jn%%t;’m&$ othot hmd, mo Gwerrumm Advooata would

them an valid and cagcnt ransom for

t ofaspeoiai Pumicfroucmnor’ mm’ hunt

reflacted in flu: notification. The allegation that this

5

cu’ :II\ um’: 1:14!’ I!jdIlIr\adI§vI|I|naIII- V ‘V

c
‘ uywtrsnm. ‘ ~.

been made mochmicdiiy at the imtanoe of
the; wifia offhe fintputiiianuriainomrect

t..r.=h

ID

…i

..fe.fi.y ….t’r.:-.m..a…fl

$9 fl QTTTIZI T5

_i_1_;|_l nnmnmnrl

hand, it would be possible for the sauna *

reasons for such appoimmem and-V
:1—- as

:%

*”- * the “””‘wrB.I””i cm is m

I.-‘9

relied upon by the would
submit that 111cm is as warm ._ * In any event,

uov-unmm- *’ “t it is aiwaya

possible mmesm me ‘ and to make

I

,5; Ln.i1.t.V’a.1i=fiV~ IQ.-…,, the ..e Hi-flu M 1.111.:

of the sound respondent woruld

this Court to fin-llow the earlier da-cm’ ‘on

.*

‘ in ‘~ A’ A I! at Ann -nuanaun vEL1″AuI-n3.u..n. A
“”””””‘ at iii 31′:i”v’i’i R fly’: ufi aupm, wuuwuly fin

4 crfthe Supreme Cmut in Mukul Dalal and other:

Z d A 1′ .:’..Vfi;v ljnion of India.

(A

.. ._ ._ _Q…|…._ -,AL

5′ l._._.._..l!…..’I….. A1..- .-…:.!A..!.._.. 0… …!C_.._…._….I I’lfl–
r. nwmmzrgly. mu puuuon ls auowua. um amummunt

ofreapcundent no.2 is quashed. However, it is made Glfi:I:’ fiB3t

flummébaflMmfixflL flmeammmmmu m:m$gg¢?;

-yr vow

finther cmppointrnom of any Special ” ”

so inclined, after assigning valid

-11.:-I1′! nfinrfinhnnni 5 nwiclnn 31- nrniil’. Ir
uwlua II yuuuutullu. LI.» 1! ->

Sims to nuke such ample

reasons and cu.-c~1m’.u’ V appom” ‘ tment

-,.._. _4..f R.___.,…._2_ .,

lmmnwnmmsmwéawam¢tmamjngu¢ mwpmfihn

; ” %

Sdfl{_
Judge