Veershetty vs The State on 24 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Veershetty vs The State on 24 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda

affected the fam:x<:J:°s at large. The axmst Qf petitioner'

necessaxy for custodiai intfirrogation.

5. 1 have berm taken, ihrozlgh the cnmplaiut Z


6. At this $tage, them is §I’i£:;1a,f._21cic iilafizxial to»’.sh5»;5w ‘

petitioner was howflixig 200 bags DA?
pfllmit/1iC€flSC. After saiziijic of SAP,

petitioner had not given, $33? ¢:2.5(pi;e1i1a§x*:«f that he was homfimg the
aforesaid cf: due license] permit. The

alkzged Gffftflfié is a,n’e(ion<§m:i(: offense. There is ac: material

* 5:i -mcbfiii f§*sh{3w thafvfiéiivfionar has been faiseiy ijinpliicaizeé.

=t_h:: 1:a:i_§1re of OfififiCfi afiageé againsi petitioner;

custoéiffil m&'£:d§afion cangaat he denied. In the

-. : -‘4.{:_i1¥3I1m@Sta?31§;é;s; 2 do no: fmé any mamas to ergtertain the

V’ «.p€¥.{££;i::;_nf”_«

K Accordingly, petitzfon is rejected.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *