; 1 2
IN THE HIGH C()UR'I' OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
QATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF' JUNE 2069 Q
BEFORE
THE HOWBLI3 MR.JUS'I'iQE.,VN_._ANA.NDA.:: > i
CRIMINAL REVISION pfirrrréam ND... T:s7'§'4,.,f::2Qg0"?" A'
BEYYWEEN:
State by PSI, Betageri ' ._
Extension Police Stating» _ _ Pef:it:idncr-'
(By S;-5. Anand Nava1gima4th,_T_:+icc;§ijgV
AND:
»--
Aged about 28 years,
R/oykialtgalla,
* «.%Neari.Baa%J5'tana, ~~~~~ « *
Ta1ui<= Rfrna;
Dist: ,. " J. ... Responéent
This' petitizm is filed under section 397 1"/W
_sae:c.4~G1. Cr.P.C. pzaying to set aside the order dated
" passed in CC l'*§o.99{}[2004 on the file of the I
» 'Addl;~.«Civi1 Judge (Jr. D11.) and JMFC, I Court, Gadag, and
" _ £:.tc.». ..
T .. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court:
made the fcflowing:
ORDER
Heard the ieanaed Govemme:1tA”‘Piea(_1er forjiifize
(petitioner). Pemsed the copy of ”
C.C.No.680/ 2006 on the file ofmgidi ei¢i1.qu:1g._e; on.) 85
JMFC I Court, Gadag.
2. Respondent in the
above case ‘agaixzsi due to his
absence. aveesiiiiieiti against accused 2
and 3, were examined.
Accused of ofiences punishable
under $eetio1isV4S?,.eC§8(A)”va1iéi. 415 we.
petitioner has no case that evidence
.§vai1.a3;1;;: respondent is different fnom the
_ evideflce addlieed against aeeuseti 2 and 3.
_ T1iew}earx1ed Magistrate following judment of Supreme
‘ geponce in 2093 see qeximman 391, has held that
vpifosecutzion has reiied upon same evidence against accused-
.. :1, wherein on the baeis of same evidence accused 2 and 3
were already tried and acquitted. Therefore, trial of [-
6>L”~’&r\,
accused on the same evidence, would not serve : V’
There is no purpose in sending i:h_e»~case ts” V
register. In the circumstances, tI1e:’~.m&
the proceeding against accusedizis (respeindentl
4. Therefore, I not ‘to”interfere
with the impugned order. is dismissed
at the stage ofadmission. A V = I
‘Judge
*sub/