{"id":106206,"date":"2009-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-09T23:26:38","modified_gmt":"2017-02-09T17:56:38","slug":"sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
\u00a7 C1111? 1205l’2G06<\/p>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE<\/p>\n
DATED THIS THE 21″‘ DAY OF JU LY 2%?
\nBEFORE<\/p>\n
THE E-iOl\\i’BLE MR.JUS’I’ICE A.s.PAcHrI.AP\u00a3j-5&3-“LI%*5~ H<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITEON      <\/p>\n
BETWEEN<\/p>\n
Sri. Mahadevaswamy<\/p>\n
S\/o Rajaiah<\/p>\n
Aged about 32 yams<\/p>\n
DodraipctaP0s1:  ‘ _  \u00ab_
\nChamarajanagar.   _”v~…’;’~..PE’I’ITiGHER]S<\/p>\n
(Sn: x.v;’v;g\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7 A{:ii\u00a7.;– <\/p>\n
AND 1 ”  %<\/p>\n
The State V
\nReprt\u00e9sented by AA!-Iblenarsipuxa<\/p>\n
     ….. ..\n<\/p>\n
“Ki91\u00e9nar5ipmv}_.  RESFONDENTI S<\/p>\n
   HCGP.)<\/p>\n
it-iii<\/p>\n
 Criminal Revision Petitim is \ufb01m under Sec\ufb01crn 397<\/p>\n
4 ” $3.133 401 Cr.P.C to set as\ufb01c the 3*:-ailment and sentence passed<\/p>\n
  ‘by the JMFC, Hoicnarasipur in (:0 No. 70212001 dated<\/p>\n
 __  \u00b0li3′.’i’;A2\ufb0203 and the oztier dated 24.5.66 passed by the Fri. S.J.,
\n    in Cr3..A. No. 5\/2003.\n<\/p>\n
This Criminal Revision Petitixm ceming on fer hearing,
\nthis day, the Court, made the frxliowingz<\/p>\n
2 CILRP I205\/2906<\/p>\n
ORBER<\/p>\n
The petitioner has cha\ufb02enged his  <\/p>\n
sentrznce for the offence punishable  b  <\/p>\n
and 338 {PC on a trial held by  :a\u00a31d ”<\/p>\n
con\ufb01rmed in appeal before thcT’S;cssi1\u00a711s”C’om’L v”V*AA   2  u<\/p>\n
2. The facts mlcvgmt fo:V_t1i\u00a7\ufb01’vpurpos\u00e9’of–\u00a7evision are
\nas under: V  ‘4 V
\nThe petitioncr h\u00a7:i*\u20aci31: ;i:\u00a7   before the Trial<\/p>\n
Court and   at about 8.15 am,<\/p>\n
when  ;  resident of Doddahalli Village had
\ncome  “after his work at that place was<\/p>\n
mctmjsing \u00a35  hilafivcdplacc in the KSRTC bus bearing<\/p>\n
” V’  -R\u00a2ga\u00a7j’u~.;a;uon: .Np.xA;b9′ ‘F 2233, it is alleged that the d\ufb01vcr of the<\/p>\n
 ._bxu_s and negligent manner and at about 9.00<\/p>\n
a.Ama , on  ‘Bray, inbetween Hassan and Mysore, near the<\/p>\n
 forest on the cuxvc, the driver was not able to comma! the<\/p>\n
\u00e9rnd thereby the bus capsized on the Ee\ufb01: side of the cmve.<\/p>\n
  A 3s many as 17 to 19 persons sustained injmtics in the accident<\/p>\n
and it is thema\ufb01er that the complainant came to the hospiial
\nfor the purpose of tzvcatmcnt and meanwhile. I5-“W.17 received the<\/p>\n
information of the accident and Went to the hospital and<\/p>\n
oi<\/p>\n
3 CILRP 120513006<\/p>\n
recorded the complaint of PW .1 as per Ex.P.1 and<\/p>\n
the said complaint and sent the FIR to the Magis1:\u00a3\u00a7t\u00a3:\u00a7     _<\/p>\n
3. He visited the scene of   ‘-nee  ;\n<\/p>\n
of the attesting Witnesses, held
\nseized the bus bearing
\nrecorded the statement  the     sketch of
\nthe scene of oecuxrcnc\u00e9’  am he arrested the:\n<\/p>\n
accused. He    the injured from
\nthe Doct<)r\u00a7.i2;*V;A\u00a7"\u00bbvg)_'c;'_::\u00bb::l;'.'.;3_<s;<!'%'ff.  Exs.P.7 and R8.
\nAffcr  he collected the report
\n   Inspector and CW.30 a\ufb01cr the<\/p>\n
investigafir)f1,=  tiix\u00e9  sheet against the accused.<\/p>\n
   the prosecution examined Pws. I to<\/p>\n
'   guidance got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to<\/p>\n
"   $\u00a7:\u00e9{cmcnt of the accused was necoxtlcd under<\/p>\n
(3r.P.C. He has taken. the \u00e9cfence of total dcmal'<\/p>\n
   not led any evidence, but got marked Exs.D.1 and D2,<\/p>\n
:5: \u00e9bnnadic\ufb01ons in the statement of PWS. 7 and 10. The Trial<\/p>\n
'    on apprccia\ufb01on of the material on mcond, convicted the<\/p>\n
petitioner fear the offence under Sections 2'?'9, 337' am 338 of<\/p>\n
IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for three months for<\/p>\n
ac':\n<\/p>\n
4 CIri.RP l205f20\u20ac)6<\/p>\n
the offence under Sections 27 9 and 338 IPC and _4o;\u00a7eni21onth<\/p>\n
imprisonment for the o\ufb01ence under Section 337  <\/p>\n
by ‘the conviction and the sentence, \ufb01e pmferxai   <\/p>\n
the said appeal came to be dismiseed   iby ”
\nthe concurrent \ufb01ndings of his
\nthis Court in revision. ‘ H V a\n<\/p>\n
5. I have heart}   the petitioner and
\nalso the High   points that arise
\nfor my   A ”\n<\/p>\n
i_. —-     and older of conviction of
\nV n ‘  tile o\ufb01ence under Sections 279,
\nA   and the sentence thereon as
\n in eximinal appeal are illegal and
\n     order?\n<\/p>\n
‘  is the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
A X1′ ” ijeiiiioner that there is no matextia}. on record to prove the rash<\/p>\n
\u00e9gnd negligent driving of the bus and that as the accident<\/p>\n
 occurred in the curve, the petitioner to avoid the accident with<\/p>\n
the motor Cycle had to take his vehicle towattis the extreme left<\/p>\n
and in the e\ufb01brt, the vehicle capsized and therefore, he submits<\/p>\n
$4<\/p>\n
S C\ufb02.RP 120519006
\nthat there is no such rash or negligent act to atttmt the<\/p>\n
provisions of Sections 279, 33′? and 338 IPC. It is also his
\ncontention that none of the witnesses have spoken to the speed
\nof the vehicle and there is no mate\ufb01al on record __rash<\/p>\n
and negligent driving and in the ci1eumstance$;”he_’<\/p>\n
that the judgment and orders of the Court \ufb02ag\u00bb <\/p>\n
petitioner are illegal an pexverse. It   t’<\/p>\n
that for the \ufb01rst time, the pe\ufb01tioner’
\nthat he has a large      in the
\ncircumstances, he subeiits tetexte;   benefit ef probation<\/p>\n
and   of the bonds. Per contxa,
\nthe  Pleader has supported the<\/p>\n
ixnpegned j\ufb01dgaient atigdtbitiexs, ofthe Court: behow.<\/p>\n
  \ufb01eve semtmzze’ ‘ d the evidence led by the prosecution<\/p>\n
an’e1,_ae  gc\u00e9uments admitted in the em ence. ex..m2 is<\/p>\n
the”‘-skeiehveitft the seem: of oecurxenee and it reveais that the<\/p>\n
    ofv\ufb01ihe accident is Hassa:n—-MysoIe road and then: is a curve<\/p>\n
   bus whieh’\u20ac%*capsi2ed has been S})0W’I1 on the<\/p>\n
%  ….e;d:reme left side efthe row. There is 20 feet tarrem \ufb02 also<\/p>\n
rough road on both the sides and the vehicle was \ufb01mnd fallen<\/p>\n
at a distance of about 20 feet {item the spot of the accident.<\/p>\n
mi<\/p>\n
6 CILRP 12(}5f’2006<\/p>\n
The circumstances  at the spot as shown  12<\/p>\n
reveal that the accident occuned at the time  <\/p>\n
was taking the vehicle in the curve and  <\/p>\n
what reason the vehicle capsized   \ufb01le 7,
\ndriver. When it is the duty of dfivg%9’to
\nthe road and when it is found    on th\ufb01
\n12:’: side the rash and  p:\ufb01\u00a7i11i#:d from the
\ncircumstances on the  :v’\u00bb\u00bbp:i~i11ciplc of res ipsa
\nIoquitur. So f;ar\u00a7 .’the \u00e9enoemcd, PW.17 in
\nhis  of the map and they
\nare    Ex.P.5.\n<\/p>\n
   by the Motor Vehicle<\/p>\n
Inspesrmr  Keport Ex.P.16 was secured and it<\/p>\n
 damage to the bus and the Motor<\/p>\n
 .__ has opined that the accident was not due to<\/p>\n
a’11}\u00a7:i11cchA.a–:n’   ggj.~.a=  defect.<\/p>\n
 is in the context of the cimumstances and the report<\/p>\n
{#16 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the evidence led by<\/p>\n
    pmsecuticn has to be looked into.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
7 CIIRP 30512006<\/p>\n
10. PWs.1 to 10 and 12 are the persons who were
\ntravelling in the bus at the time of the accident and have
\nsustained injmies. The injmy certi\ufb01cates are  at<\/p>\n
Exs.P.13 to P30 and Exs. 10.7 and R8. Among\u00e9t <\/p>\n
F’V\\fs.’?’, 9 and 10 have sustained gievofus  the ze\u00e9t. <\/p>\n
have suffered simple inj1:me’ s.   A  .<\/p>\n
the Doctor and he has spoken.\n<\/p>\n
su\ufb01ered by the witnesses.    of thee
\nWimesses except PWs;’I?\u00ab,._..V9 _a1e,d     have not
\nstated about the speed (117 tlhieieveejele Let of the accident<\/p>\n
but  ‘s\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7tsV.:’_’the \u00e9e\ufb01tioner who was driving the
\nvehicle  while he was taking the<\/p>\n
curve. and  the bile V\u00e9epsized on the left side of the mad.<\/p>\n
  of {‘i:e”‘evidence of the injured PWs.7, 9 and 10<\/p>\n
 we  “*1 th\u00e9it has was driven in h1gh’ speed. The witnesses<\/p>\n
  speed of the vehicle was in between 60 to 70<\/p>\n
 Inns]  this evidence of the witnesses reveal that the<\/p>\n
A j?j”:aA;c;ei<1ent occuned While the driver was taking the curve and<\/p>\n
 that he hamri no (20:11:11)! over the vehkle and therefoze the bus<\/p>\n
"capsized on the left side. Though there is a suggestion that to<\/p>\n
avoid a hit to the motor cycle, which was coming from the<\/p>\n
opposite direction, he had to take the vehicle on the ie\ufb01 side,<\/p>\n
54<\/span><\/p>\n
8 CILRP 1205:2006<\/p>\n
but some of the witnesses have denim the said sugges\ufb01pn. If
\nreally, the vehicle was coming from the opposite  if<\/p>\n
the rider of the motor cycle was neglige11t,””‘.g:i:efij;::i’1\ufb01e}g’g,e’  <\/p>\n
petitioner could have lodged a   :\u00a7e’11’m{3-mr’ T. AV<\/p>\n
cyclist.\n<\/p>\n
1 1. Furthermore, the  ef’ peei\ufb01oncr was
\nrecorded under  13  _exce;H)tVAdcnying the
\nincriminating ciI_’cum$ta.n,e_es  record by the
\npmseeution,_V}f\u00a7e’     the vehicle capsized
\non the side. .91″  within his knowledge
\nand  i1;,’…’eV;v;’;v’a4:1verse infexence eouid be
\ndrawn   Section 106 of the indian<\/p>\n
Evidesce  ._:VInv.\u00a3heA.eif\u00e9\u00a31mstanees, the defence put forth by<\/p>\n
‘ V’  ..eann<5t"\ufb01eV accepted and takah g into oonsiieration<\/p>\n
 .__ the that arises from the circumstances at the spot<\/p>\n
 of the eye witnes-ms, a safe conclusion could<\/p>\n
 be ax\ufb01veii at holding that the petitioner was rash and negligent<\/p>\n
":–? iaipejiving the bus. The Trial Court and also the \ufb01rst appellain<\/p>\n
  iiiourt have taken into oensideraijon this evidence and have<\/p>\n
cosine to a right conclusion. I do not \ufb01nd any iiiegality in the<\/p>\n
M;\n<\/p>\n
9 CILRP 1205v”2{)G6<\/p>\n
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under .279,<\/p>\n
337 and 338 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
12. The petiti-ancr was aged:32′   f. z
\naccident. The counsel submits   Ivis
\nminor children and he has  that
\nfamily members and     sentence
\nof imprisonment, he ‘_  the family has to
\nsu\ufb01cr all along    He ought
\nto have bC(?Ii’    and could have
\n1~cducc\u00a7:l..    taccidcnt could have been
\navoidetif   negligent act, as many as 19
\npcrsonst\u00e9 t\ufb01tfrxe  in addition, the KSRTC bus<\/p>\n
sust\ufb01aiixed sev\u00a2?m._damage.\n<\/p>\n
  1  if the petitioner is can\ufb01ncd, he will loge the<\/p>\n
   same time, if he is ordered to pay the<\/p>\n
 corttfscxiaa\ufb01\ufb01fn, he can continue in service’ , Iook after his fam\ufb02y<\/p>\n
‘V ” . an*c:.;as\u00a7; compensate the injured and also the KSRTC. 1: is the<\/p>\n
  o\ufb01cncc and therefem tahng into considcxation these<\/p>\n
Vt htvt\u00e9izrzumstances, I am of the opi1:11ca’ 1:: that it is a tit case wherein”<\/p>\n
the bene\ufb01t of probation has tn be extended cfnecting the<\/p>\n
petitioner to pay the compensation. As many as 16 pcmons<\/p>\n
%%–\\<\/p>\n
10 CILRP 12032006<\/p>\n
have sustained simple injuries like abrasions and  <;x$x1t u\u00a7ions<\/p>\n
Whereas PWs.3, 7, 9 and 10 have sustained <\/p>\n
In the circumstances, I think it wouid be  <\/p>\n
award compensation of Rs.2,OOO\/1;-_V    "
\nhave sustained simple
\npersons who have sustained xV-\n<\/p>\n
towards the damage to   the petitioner
\nhas to pay the  the injured and
\nalso to the  .  ~ v\ufb01c\u00e9ii\u00e9tiexa\ufb01on these an
\n in a\ufb01irmative and
\npartly j\ufb01\u00e9ss the ibllowingz
\nu’. A %   wMV “ORDER<\/p>\n
A. — The I\u00a3::%i$ian ‘is  in part a\ufb01rming the convllctzion of<\/p>\n
” ”  \u00a3’,c\u00e9iijom;r.  ‘”i\u00e9’ <V)xdercd to be relcased on probation on<\/p>\n
    bond for Rs.5,000\/ ~ with one surety in<\/p>\n
  period of three years on proba\ufb01on of good<\/p>\n
 cond1i:;t\u00a7'i-He is ozdcxw to pay the compensation of Rs.82,000\/ –<\/p>\n
"ii  three months from this date. ()1: deposit of thc<\/p>\n
'  rfompcnsation amount, an amount of Rs.2,0G0\/- each shail be<\/p>\n
paid to \u00a7PWs.1 \u00a306 and 8 and CWs.9 to 16 and CWJ8 and an<\/p>\n
amount of I52s.S,{)O0\/- shall he paid to PW's.7, 9 and 16. The<\/p>\n
04<\/span><\/p>\n
11 Cti.RP 126532006<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.35,000\/- shall be paid to the Managing<\/p>\n
KSR”I'(Z2, towards the damages of the vehicle. In  <\/p>\n
payment of the compensa\ufb01on, the  ,c–:~,.  <\/p>\n
simpie imprisonment for a  A 2853\u00bb; .:\u00a73;ionths,L__u \u00ab i.’I’:11c ”<\/p>\n
conviction of the petitioner shall\ufb01ot \u00e9njnc in th\ufb01 ;v:a\u00a7u.y: of<\/p>\n
of the pciritioncr.        \/_
\nJudge<\/p>\n
JL<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 Author: A.S.Pachhapure \u00a7 C1111? 1205l’2G06 IN THE HIGH COURT’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21″‘ DAY OF JU LY 2%? BEFORE THE E-iOl\\i’BLE MR.JUS’I’ICE A.s.PAcHrI.AP\u00a3j-5&3-“LI%*5~ H CRIMINAL REVISION PETITEON BETWEEN Sri. Mahadevaswamy S\/o Rajaiah Aged about 32 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\\\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\\\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\\\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009"},"wordCount":1875,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009","name":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T17:56:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahadevaswamy-so-rajaiah-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Mahadevaswamy S\/O Rajaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}