High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs G Krishnappa on 16 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs G Krishnappa on 16 February, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao


Ht wwmnm war” nmmmmammn mama”: ?u%JMfi.§’ _%.J!”‘ MHENMHMKM W313?! %%M.1M’£§ W?’ Kfiflfifliflxfl. NIKQW QQUKT Q? KKKNATAKA

II
I-5
5!

IN TH.’ HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

mrzo mrs 2:33 25″ may or rmxamr 2093»-..¢M¢ji.V_

EEFDRE

rm H?.’.1N’BB£1′ MR.JU8TI(2£2 x.§3:2sn;auR%ii:.ab’~%Ii _

R.P.Na.34/2d’£?*.§ 3 ‘
x.s.A.Na.-gmzsaa V

BETWEEN

-nv–nu on-u-an-u-nu an

1 swam as mmrnm : %
2’2 ms CI-IIEE’ S1i;.fii’:ET;3kRY._”»__
VImIANA:.5G§I 3IiA ;: ” %
001

2 :’:m__ VQEFICER
msaakmif. Rar:j§;B,_ was ROAD
s1~I?’+_1*IC=_t2»A ‘–“. * % ~

3 THE zzzgsmzcr ” orrzcm
mam .3-}e:2V1_\:z. _

Jinaavmn-6~ . .. . PBTITICMRS

Ass: zt.amzu*Mmw:.. ‘man:

‘ naturism

G K3,I’§3I-RIAPPA
” 9 GANC-}3XE’PA
r_.E_%GE.’D EEOUT 59 YE.P.«R$
GCC: AGRICULTURE RN13 IBU$I1′!E$5
F RIO QNHXNUR, NIDIGE I-IOBLI
” SHIMDGA TALUK AND DISTRICT . . . RESPONDEVPI’

mvmw mrxrzou 2:139 um 47 RJULE 1 on’
eye, ynarms Fox mvxnw 93* firm enzyme mm:
zweaxzcoa 1=-AS5313 m RSR manage 92¢ mm mm

%/

n mwwnm wg mwm-mmemmn rzmrrr K,uL.:%§..:.3?,)r mmmmmzm fllwfi fiflmflf £3? KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA Hfifivfl CQUR”? Q? KARN&TfiKA HEGH COL?

it

or may HBN’BLE HIGH coca? or Knaunmnxn,
aaneanenm. ya

mars PETITIGH conzne an run V3£$3ifié+

IIQTERLOCUTGRY APFLXCATIGN THIS DAY, _

IEDE I’!-IE FGLLOWING:

The raaaana statVa::%:’%:\q:«4-do nag
sufficient gzound ~.;jc> “V’deiay in
filing the aaviww éétitiafig fi@#é3§v1.172a/aces
is Patitian is

alsc: d.i3!§fi.’#5j:§{:!£.’:v.”:”‘._ ,

5615
I 111135

j