*R]0~GaRI3E1¢V1I¢LA %z¢:s.m,!2. «rrmeaoas mm *.%V%mm&wRE~aeoo41 %% aownmanvocpxrsy '"~VW'* 'W' "**'\"W®¥*'%*\#* "Wm Wu-«vwfité nanlufinflm Mnwe-I LUUKI U?" KAKNAIAKA HJQH CQURY £3? KARNAYAKA MEG!-I COURT OF KARNAWAKA HQGH CQUR 111 Tim HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT mmn 11-118 'mm 2!» my on snmmzn Vjf % BEFORE nmnowam hm.JUS'I'IC.ER. B. % A s;oT.ABDULI-mfillfiltmhlfv _ R.iANO.4-7l,39WAOROsa < 5l3BL0GE.JAYARAGAR. ' BAll(mLORE---5600_4Ig_ _, nmpnvmr-.a.no1,r.smg£T'J%_. _ sfonmmnm no.9. t mmvmwnr & % M aRI.c.H. m§£YA as smasunzsn, 7 . WiO5B8ha3 AL: REBPOKDERT wee AL. 'mh Criminal Appeal is mad under sermon 378(4) C1-.P.C. to set aside thus j%nt of acquittal 25.11.03
panned by $13 XVI Addl. C.M.M.,
in C.C.lIo.3548′:’I99 nequitting the raupnndam
for the mace punilnbh undar section 133 of
Innumxmmu Act.
was ma folkming:- j %
The appellant herein of
acquittal dntaud 2s.1%:@.ama.%% Addl.
c.M.M.. aoqumm the
section 133 of Negotfible %
3- 1* 5’1? ‘1″ tat’ coznplnmnnt’ tlm
the in man his pmpeny harm
sy.na§qa i ” 12. ntu:Ind’ i:1Tmm:-ahua
‘7 an afireamarnan 19.10.1999.
ogeed as be sold for 3 mm of
¥..’J%”.l3WK”5′ W? KAKNR.E’AK..R Mlkfifi QUUKE mnammmrm HEW?! LWUKI UP lfiflbtmflfiflfiflu mam-1 mwwacé fii?’ mflkfiflfiflflfl Niki?! LUUKE U?’ mmgmmmua i”§i§.’}§§’§ QUUX
mapondam roceived a sum of &.9.75.00Qf-
Mttx Lust EL»-
MWUK8 Ur nm%*:NfliAKA MGR Cflflmf KflRNATflK& MGM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF K&RNA’!’A|(A MGR %UR’i’0F KAmATfiKA Wfii-‘E COUW
the sworn statement of the power of attorney
recorded on the basis of which, cognizance llazifi i
process was Issued. It is is
back from a foreign countxy the e
and lead evidence. This preeedureie not law
111 View of the law laid dovifia Court
in the case of Jimmy Cariyappa
Hindley [2004 soo}. who seeks to
prosecute of attorney holder
should make “before the trial court seeking
permission of ” provided under section 302
siicti should be made by the
in the complainant alone. Such applicafion
Veiren by the power of attorney holder.
liowevei’, z in not making an application is
such, I hold that the order of aoquittal dated
requires interference. Hence, the following
V order:
The appeal IS allowed. gift/U;\_CL;l.
.W mwmmgvrfiflffltwfl Wm Wm: W mm:-mmgrmn rmzm mum” M mm-mmm mmmmmr W mmmmm Hm-i mug
,,fi*mm
The order ofaoquittal dated 25.11.2003 panned
xv: Addl. c.M.u., Bnngnhm city, in c.c.xo.3s4a:rg%9%5i%§n;%
uaestanide. L % A{ 1
The matter is remanded m