High Court Karnataka High Court

State By Brahmpur Police Station vs Vishru S/O Lingusha Barad on 14 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State By Brahmpur Police Station vs Vishru S/O Lingusha Barad on 14 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
  '   .. RESPONDENT

Sri, Mvomm)
V’ C91-.i5;.t.”3. praying to set aside the impugned onier

passed by the Spl. Judge, Gamma in
NFo.135/03.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKK .:’_*~..v
cmcurr BENCH AT GULBAR(}A” V

DATED: THIS THE 14TH DAY Q
BEF0F¥\BW V
THE HON’BLE M>;R._JUE»§A;i’1($£<§._Afi'l.A!*i1»§i',%i')}i ' V' _
CRIMINAL REVISION §Ei'}TON. No.1 g 006 kk

fitateby Bmhmpur
Police Station, 'V __ .

Gulbarga. f ‘=«,3..”‘PE’¥’ITlO}\lER

(By Sn’. subhagi?My3a;§i;r,
AND: ‘ A’ % R

Vishm, = V ‘
S/o.Linguah2;; Berad, V V

I ….. .. 7
Oc(S.* P’DA ‘ ‘
Corporméon; uGu1bé=r’ga.”‘

R/o.Aland

, mvism petition is filed u/3.397 rlw.

the accused who was working’ as
Divisién in the omce orcity Corporation. The

‘ aaapseei inc compxamanz by taking the mm of his
imennton to insult him within the pause
yv complaint was lodged and flier investigation, the

4, ofioer fim a charge sheet and mquesmd the

ORDEE” J *

In SpI.Case No.135/ Judge
seem’ n 3(i}(x) of sc and S1′ (Prevcfl o§._:A;K;¢1. Act,

1989.

2. Briefly is as foflows:

On 14. compiainant along
with other aavoéatgs. the own: of the City
corpqmaquijaé enquné afiéutguppxy oflwv boob which they
under cermin scheme. In that

Comm.iss1o’ ncr, city Corporation to 4 fin!’

pmsocution of the accuwd, but ‘samtf,-‘

accused picflcd for discharge. :’*.: g’ he

could not have been garnaficaijcd éi”vi$;li’c;I1Vt
is mqusmd under Secticm s;-.p. c:; ma:
Judge accepting the him in
terms of the :f;%npugn¢d%%céd¢r§ Sm: is befiom

V that question of sanct1o’ n
can not necwsarily befom fianring of

cha1wge__ ‘tVtb:s1:a;tc,thcrcq1nrc’ mentofaancuon’ to

arise if the act complained against

V “any nexus with the ofiaciai duties entrusted to

be seen form the nmration offacts in the

ozdm”, the accused was working as First Division

L’ » ‘Aasismt in Gulbarga City Corporation. The coanp1amm1’ t
other advocates had approached him to enqxzim about

‘ avaiiahility of books. The: accused had not ficmpowemd

N

to abuse compiainant by taking the name of

any event, whether the act » L4

any nexus with the duties ent1i’ustr;’d

committed by mcused was: to .101’ ‘

oficial duties ext: mixed quesfidnga Themibxe,
the learned Sessions nm; in dischmgzng

4. petition is accepted.

The learned Spl. Judge is

2.; N’o.l35/2003 mi proceed
with thcu”ca_ §.u. of the observations made hcznain

kw.

Sd/-.

fudge