{"id":175001,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-10T17:19:07","modified_gmt":"2017-08-10T11:49:07","slug":"smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Arali Nagaraj<\/div>\n
I\n\nIN THE HIGH coum or= KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 15* DAY or \u00a3)ECEMBER;;j2:\u00a7f1I9\"'..\"\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC;E~\u00bbA.RAL.:.VNy\ufb01\u00e9w\ufb01\ufb01t\ufb01j.T;  AV\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL ;'A(o;t_A8ft8:v2\/;;E;'(') O;25*   _\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt.3ayashee|ath\"ma   _\nW\/0 late Boraiah; 'A   \nAged about 55 yAea_r's\u00bb,, V\n\n2. Natara{J'VIJ A\u00a7,'-ht      \nS\/o,!ate..1Bo.ra'--:a'h,.__.._'~~.._   \u00bb\nAge'd__a b_c_)'I;.:_t 30 yea~r's, t  \n\nBoth  re ttetS'itiV\u00a7.ng  \\.'.,';:1'I'af.';vara\u00a7f-iawlttlti\nViilage, Ka'saba\"!i'a,bii\u00bb, ' \n\nMaddur'Ta'!uk,'  '    \nMandya E)\u00a7.s4t%rE,r.t. ._  \"  APPELLANTS\n\n '(By Sri V.M\"S.vR_a_j\u20ac:ndra Prasad -~ Sr. Advocate)\n\ne 594:   t \"\n\n. 3t.af.e otf' lu'{.a--rh'aVte2 ka,\n\nBy--.44\\_\/igi_I.a~n_\u00a2e Officer,\nCESCOIVE, V\n\n Mandya_..\" RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
   =   (By Sri A v Ramakrishna \u00ab- H c <3 P)<\/p>\n
{:______('\u00b0"\u00b0""I""'4..r'x,___,,<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal is filed u\/s 374(2) of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure by the appellants against the judgment
\nand order of conviction and sentence dated .1~5;”2,2.008
\npassed by the Additional Sessions Judge_.anjd,’Sp~ecial<\/p>\n
}udge, Mandya in Special Case (Elect)—i_No’.477–\/2gOQ6i-.9
\nconvicting the appellants for the offences pu_nisfh’abIe’u~\/s <\/p>\n
135 & 138 of Electricity Act of 20__O,3..__<\/p>\n
This appeal coming on for”-:,hea’rrir:;g \u00e9belfore the-.C’o1:urt<\/p>\n
today, Court delivered the following:\n<\/p>\n
;lUDG–!VlEiNT r
\nAccused Nos.1V &..V:i’2_,ii’\u00e91gSjpeci’a’ljCase No.47\/2006 on
\nthe file of the learne;j.~-Avd_tji~tion,a.|_  Judge, Mandya
\n(hereinafterto   ,””1′.-Vfallwl Cgurf’, for short),
\nhave chalvlengediyyyinll  the correctness of the
\n}udgtf1._ent ‘and”v’if)fi–.rjjer,,’clait\u00e9d15.7.2008 passed in the said
\ncase convictin,gVVboth_the_h1 of the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
sectglotns 135 at ‘–1s3_Ef3__Q.f Electricity Act of 2003,<\/p>\n
 l-tatnakrishna, learned High court Government<\/p>\n
V -V Pie’a’der:i\u00e9Vs directed to take notice on behalf of the CESCOM<\/p>\n
(‘:”5*ri._Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company), the<\/p>\n
 llfreslpondent.\n<\/p>\n
e\u00ab-.\u00a7””‘””‘”””‘”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.- Stated in brief the cg\u00a7_e_ gf the grosggggign as alieged
\nin Ex.P2 complaint filed by the complainant namely’,-PW1 K
\nN Nagesh, the Assistant Executive EngineerW(CVE’\u00a7C\u00a7’i'<'i),<\/p>\n
Maddur Subdivision, is as under:\n<\/p>\n
(a) On 3.1.2006 at about 11 a.m. ‘thief\ufb01ftom\u00a7\u00a7jiaihaht,~\u00ab..X.<\/p>\n
along with the police of <\/p>\n
members of his staff inspected VRl\u00a7””Nos.VFi’  <\/p>\n
264 which were insta|iedV’V2’i’i~nwthe residien\ufb01ceyjand shop
\npremises of the aCc_0s–ed -‘andRR..__i’\u00e9.o’.’M_P 1340 which was
\ninstailed in the Flew!M.iii]et.th’e.eeeased. Since the<\/p>\n
accused had’not’rnad:e”‘;3a~,fment of Rs.9678\/- in respect
\nof  4Rs.(-3,522\/– in respect of VH 264<\/p>\n
,.\u00abit3sta~l!ation”‘*~P\u00a2_lt\u00a7i.awing to the residence and shop<\/p>\n
 preh1.i.ses”‘ahd also a sum of Rs.1-4,998.00 in respect of<\/p>\n
 ii”22’iis.’i2d:-\ufb01ll 1340 instailed in the Flour Mill of the<\/p>\n
uaruci”ised,i the electricity supply to the said installations<\/p>\n
2’ *—was\ufb02istopped from 24.1.2005 in respect of V H 263 and<\/p>\n
‘D264 and from 28.12.2005 in respect of installation MP<\/p>\n
1340.\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(b) After the electricity supply was disconnected by the
\ncomplainant in respect of the said installatioyns, the<\/p>\n
accused illegally took electric supply directly?’frofrji\ufb01tvhe<\/p>\n
electricity pole to the said installations. <\/p>\n
date of inspection, it was found ‘th.a&_t7.,the.”accusedi’,\u00abhad ‘<\/p>\n
taken electricity supply diyrectlyfroirnlthelelrectric <\/p>\n
the said installations ai.a,,jmaeby ‘–comn_\ufb01_ittle,dWtheft of’<\/p>\n
electricity.\n<\/p>\n
Hence the complaiVnia’nti-filjled t_h:e:is_a,ivd’complaint.\n<\/p>\n
4. On apprec.iation:.iof’\u00bbthe or_\u00a7_|_’ev’id,e’r’ivce of PWs.1 to 8<\/p>\n
and the dOCLJVr;lV”iE\u00a7l::.,l;:S  to P22 and MO No.1 Meter
\nBoard and_”a,l,so’ “e:yidence of DWs.1 to 4 and the<\/p>\n
docurnents at”Exs_,_lQJ., & D2 produced by the accused in<\/p>\n
\u00bb s’u–\u00bbp_po.rAt’\u00abof\u00abth*ei_r defence, the Trial Court, by its impugned<\/p>\n
  convicted both the accused for the<\/p>\n
orr\u00e9nc\u00e9ltu\/ss. 135 8′. 138 of Electricity Act, 2oo3.<\/p>\n
 5. ‘I.,__have heard the arguments of Sri M \u00a7 Raiendra<\/p>\n
V.”VV\u00ab.,E\u00a3a\u00a7ad, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant –<\/p>\n
(“____’~r””””\\P”‘t-P””‘*o.a*<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
accused and also Si-IA I\/Ramakrishna, learned Highcourt<\/p>\n
Government Pleader and perused the entire mate’r’iva:if”-found<\/p>\n
in the original records obtained from the   ‘<\/p>\n
6. On a careful reading of the;”evid_’eri’ce 1of_t’he <\/p>\n
examined for the prosecu”tEon~…VandA”a|Vso _the_ ‘ei\/i’der’ice ofm<\/p>\n
DWs.1 to 4 examinedfor the_.:rjcjcu’sed, .the–fo||o,’i}ving facts
\nare not in dispute: V  i V n\n<\/p>\n
(i)   i\u00bbv”%\u00a7v-\u00a7\\”‘VlVV\\’ios.I\/H 2g; and ya;
\ngggAwar’-5553st\u00a7.icIie\u00a7i:jiViiby\u00abiQtne5cEscoM respectively in
\n:”the~.  and shop premises of the
\nagcrusear in the name of late Boraiah<\/p>\n
 husband “o.f:a__c_cu.sed No.1 and father of accused No.2.<\/p>\n
 (‘ii\u00a7u.”_”Th’e”installation bearing RR No.MP 134;; was<\/p>\n
 ir’zsta’iied for the purpose of Flour Mill run by the<\/p>\n
”  accused and the same was standing in the name of<\/p>\n
it Accused No.1 Smt.3ayashee|amma.\n<\/p>\n
,.,…_r””‘–\u00bb—.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
(iii) The power supply to all the said installations
\nwas disconnected by the complainant (CESCOM) for
\nthe reason that the electricity charges were<\/p>\n
by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)The complainant visited the resi_denti:al,  V. <\/p>\n
Flour Mill premises of the accused,’  h<\/p>\n
7. What is seriously disputed ‘b__y”~t_he accused’, is-,_”t’hat,_2<\/p>\n
after the power supply tq;..,.:t’\u00a3<ie said.linysfallat\u00e9ivonsy was'<\/p>\n
disconnected, by ther'C:ESCO'lVi,=lthelaccused'"illedally took<\/p>\n
power'suppEy"u'to-.,::i;il'ie""ls,a'i'd 'installations directly from the
\nelectric 'pole _and_ committed theft of electricity.<\/p>\n
Th.ei.de3'ence"'o\u00a7..tvheyaccused is that so far as residential<\/p>\n
\u00bb 'pre,n*iises,a.nd. shop premises are concerned, they had been<\/p>\n
H 'using  'lllarl\u00e9hergy and so far as installation in the Flour<\/p>\n
Mill" is 'conhc\u00e9erned, all the machineries, including the electric<\/p>\n
 "r'notor,"'huller etc., were sold in the month of September,<\/p>\n
 itself and they were taken away by the purchaser<\/p>\n
it Wnameiy, DW2 Puttaswamy Gowda of the same village and<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore the accused had no occasion to commit theft of
\nelectricity by taking electricity supply to
\ninstallation illegally directly from the electric  i”<\/p>\n
8. In order to substantiate:”i\u00abgthe_’l”said.yvldefenlciei;..Tti*ie<\/p>\n
accused No.1 has got herse.l_Vf’e_xami’ne’diagsl\u00bb-D\\\u00abti1″*~airl’d sheet<\/p>\n
has got examined D\\Ns.2 to_.._zql:.”‘i3lso_,g’ arid D2 are
\nrespectively the Mavrriaigei  in respect of
\nmarriage of th4e:’d.a’ugh’te’r’ and Ex.D2 is the
\nd0CUment::-  “VaV_wilWt’he machineries by<\/p>\n
accus_ed..,NoVI1_V’.i’n;\u00bb’1ia_vou.r’.’of”DlW—2..Puttaswamy Gowda.\n<\/p>\n
9. {In __o.rclerf_to_”esta_t5liShiits case against the accused<\/p>\n
that afterfthe’ d.isC’oAr*.nect”i’o’n of power Supply to the said<\/p>\n
instaii’ations, accused took power supply illegally<\/p>\n
 direct|yh:Agfrorn._Vthe electric pole and thereby consumed the<\/p>\n
 .el’;’=;s5:fclri”cit\\,:yu,\u00bbVln\u00bblV.r’u’nning the flour mill and also in lighting their<\/p>\n
res”i.derijti’a~l.tand shop premises of the accused, the<\/p>\n
V.  iprosecution ahs placed reliance on the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
l  compiainant, the officer of CESCOM, PWs.2 and 3 the<\/p>\n
c–~.\u00a7’\\””\\…..\u00bb-..\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\npanchas to E><.P2 scene of offence panchanarna,____PWs.6<\/p>\n
and 7 the police constabie and head constable w"h.o"\u00ab-.clavvi'm<\/p>\n
to have accompanied PW1 to the premises <\/p>\n
on 3.1.2006 for inspection.\n<\/p>\n
10. Of the said witnesse_s’;~~…V_PWs:2_ &_V3_A’restpiectiveiyttll<\/p>\n
Mahesh and Dinesh,;__.panch_as:'”to”‘-\ufb01x.l52}’–:t_he_:\u00a7scene of
\noffence panchanamvaiviilhhaiirefC:ivtu”rii.e\u20aci|\u00e9V:’hostile to the
\nprosecution. Tl*.’o_ughi’t’hei’i{‘:\u00a2oi’detn_ceV’-estauhlishes that PW1
\ncompiainant   of the accused on
\n3.1.2ooa.,,  that the Flour Mill
\nwas paging  of inspection by taking the
\nelectricity’  the electric pole. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the\u00ab.5\u00ab:e\u00a7\/idencelnof.these PWs.2 & 3 is of no help to the<\/p>\n
.’ prosec,uti.on:t’o estabiish the said fact.<\/p>\n
 zT’he”p.rosecution has relied upon Exs.P3 to P11 the<\/p>\n
photographs, said to have been taken by CW? Ravi<\/p>\n
l\u00e9rakash, the CPC (Civil Police Constable) of Vigiiance Poiice<\/p>\n
“station of CESCOM. Though PW6 Marisicidegowda, the<\/p>\n
<~t–~\u00ab~<"""'""'~—t~—-:v<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\npolice constable has stated in his evidence that CW7 took<\/p>\n
the said photographs at the time of inspection <\/p>\n
premises on 3.1.2006, the other prosecution<\/p>\n
have not stated anything as to  that <\/p>\n
said photos on that day. Besides:”ithis.}:lthe1pro’segcuti’ol:ri\u00ab.has<\/p>\n
not chosen to get CW7 Pral<ash~ 'has at<\/p>\n
witness to prove that__the saAipd—-pfr?oto~g'raphs' wereii taken on
\nthe said date of inspec'tion..  on perusal of
\nthese photogra'ph_s,  none of the
\nprosecution.  Vseefh'. it qinllllllany of the said
\nphotogVra.ph's~..to lesitalbll-vishiitiliati:th_e}same were taken at the
\nrelevant t.imeVof\u00bb 'Though it is admitted by DW2,
\nthe purch'aser_oi"t_h'eV.'.mac.hi4neries of the said Flour Mill that<\/p>\n
theseitphotogra'p.hs_____pertain to the said Fiour Mill, by this<\/p>\n
lagdrnission*,its.e.lf, it could not be held that the said<\/p>\n
l"'ph(\u00a7.togvraAp"ljs'A';vv'ere taken as on the date and time of<\/p>\n
insp'ecti'*oan\u00a7' "Further PW1 complainant has stated that some<\/p>\n
"VVV":"','1.'fl\u00a5iV"\\'.'-"_e' customers and also the operator of the Flour Mill<\/p>\n
 Zwzelrel present at the premises at that relevant point of<\/p>\n
"inspection, none of the said customers and the said<\/p>\n
<~"'–3-"ft"-N"\u00b0"'–*""\n<\/p>\n
I0<\/p>\n
operator has been examined by the prosecution. None of
\nthem has also been cited as a charge sheet witness.<\/p>\n
Nothing prevented the cornpiainant from <\/p>\n
photographs of any of the said customers,gthev4.o’pie’rato’ry<\/p>\n
and other witnesses who ha.vev\u00bb..b’ee.=fi Vexalirninedja, forth’<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
12. On careful reading of-4_the iinpugnediifud\u00e9gimegntyl <\/p>\n
could be seen that the Trialif\ufb01lotiart hasidisbeviiieved the
\nevidence of DW1 asthe diefei’ic’ei”o.f_the accused that<\/p>\n
Soiar Energy was bei_ng.:.u’sed._ his Vres_i–d’ential and shop<\/p>\n
prerni’ses–.’ .IvtV”V’i1ja.\u00a7\ufb01”disbei’ieve”d it on the ground that no
\ndocumen’t.._i\u00a7 ,produVced.ib}y4the accused to substantiate the<\/p>\n
sa.ri51e”. “It is the?-seHttie.d principle that in a criminal case, the<\/p>\n
\u00bb :a’ecused\u00ab.need__ not prove his defence beyond reasonable<\/p>\n
H ‘-dAo’ubtn.”‘Ri’f..tii.e’Vdefence version is shown to be probable,<\/p>\n
tha’tzwou’id.V be sufficient. Though the prosecution has<\/p>\n
2 xsei_2uedV”‘MO No.1 wire to show that eiectricity supply was<\/p>\n
Atta\ufb01ken from the electric pole directly to the Ffour Mill by<\/p>\n
‘using the said wire, no such wire has been produced by it<\/p>\n
r–.,.._M\u00a7””‘-.,_.,.–\u00bb–\u00bb~…\n<\/p>\n
to show that the electricity suppiy was taken illegally from
\nthe eiectric pole directiy to the residential prem.iVse.s’i~and<\/p>\n
shop premises of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
13. As could be seen further from  <\/p>\n
judgment, the Triai Court has disbuelieved\u00e9 the.Aie\u00a7\/.idenc’eVi.of<\/p>\n
DW2 on the ground that he did notpi’oduce.’ainy~cI>0cui’n*i~eVn’t,<\/p>\n
to show that he obtained ~..p\u00a7’r:.missionifrotti Viitihieivvi\ufb01iliageii<\/p>\n
Panchayat for running his’fiotirdi-.n’1i|I ‘by “using the
\nmachineries purchasedivy:hiiiirii’frornii”Ai:ou’sed No.3,. DW2<\/p>\n
has cleariy stated’:-i.n his ex’\/idenceii”t_hat__tie’ purchased ail the<\/p>\n
machiijeries .in’u’tfi’e_’sa’i4ci.i?i’ou’i'”Mil! during September, 2005
\nand he took  the same on the day of their<\/p>\n
purehase. Txh’e.rei___i_s discrepancy in his evidence as to the<\/p>\n
\u00bb d’a\u00bbte o.n’\u00abwi<i.,i_c':'i'i__he took possession of the said machineries,<\/p>\n
 wxr'i'ethe'rAV'Ai"ti:..viiias. 5.9.2005 or 6.9.2005? Referring to this<\/p>\n
dis.crep'ainc3}.V, the Trial Court has disbeiieved the evidence<\/p>\n
05–._[;)V\\iV2. Whether he took possession of the said<\/p>\n
iiiiinachineries on 5"' or 6"' of September 2005, the fact<\/p>\n
V' "remains that he took possession of the same during the<\/p>\n
.3-u.,–=—-\u00a3.'."'""""\u00b0**-"<…….\u00bb-=-.<\/p>\n
I 2<\/p>\n
month of September, 2005. Therefore, as rightly<\/p>\n
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the…accus_ed,<\/p>\n
the Trial Court committed error in disb\u00e9l'i'eyi'ri-gt,'<\/p>\n
evidence of DWs.1 & 2.\n<\/p>\n
14. Though it is the case’ of theiprosecutionCthatilafterii;<\/p>\n
disconnection of the installationswf,the  illegally took
\nsupply of the electricityhfor’run_ni:n:’g__’,t.h,e~flour  and also
\nfor lighting the,._residen.tia_lj:vand,AA;5yho\ufb01._.’pr-errnises, it has not
\nseized the ‘__n1e:ters_  said premises to
\nshow that\u20acth.e:.4.’ri;\u00a7ete’r   stop by the accused by
\ntakingpglectriicviftyfysupp’l”y:’:_:di~rec’tly from the electric pole to
\nthe respecitiyve,  The Trial Court has lost sight<\/p>\n
ofgt:hiVs_lA’aspenct””-rofwthe case. Therefore, I am of the<\/p>\n
‘ consid.eredi..o”pinion that the Trial Court committed serious<\/p>\n
‘error inrf\u00e9tfofrdwifvng its finding that the prosecution proved<\/p>\n
its cas\u00e9.ag’ainst the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for<\/p>\n
  th’e”.offe’nce with which they were charged.<\/p>\n
(‘-_\u00a7w\u00ab\\’-%V”””‘\\..-\u00bb—w<\/p>\n
13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
15. For the reasons aforesaid, the Qresgnt gggeal is<\/p>\n
allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order of ..c’o.n’v.tCtiVon<\/p>\n
and sentence dated 15.7.2008 passed <\/p>\n
No.47\/2.006 on the file of the learned AcJ’di’ti’on_g3\u00a7 <\/p>\n
Judge, Mandya is hereby set aside: “i”_hse’;acct.1sed’\u00bb <\/p>\n
are hereby acquitted of bot’:’iV__t’i=2..e oftevnces  138s’<\/p>\n
of Efectricity Act of 2003. ;f__Vxan.y’fiVne .amo,uAnty,f\u00a7has been
\npaid by the accused, theys.a’me{–,s.hailVft:e’Arefunded to them’.
\nThe ba” 90″?” .01′ We”–accUS\u00a7%ds5.t3’D\u00ab\u00e9i’i\u00bb’ants shail stand<\/p>\n
cance!fed.__.   ‘<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009 Author: Arali Nagaraj I IN THE HIGH coum or= KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15* DAY or \u00a3)ECEMBER;;j2:\u00a7f1I9″‘..” BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTIC;E~\u00bbA.RAL.:.VNy\ufb01\u00e9w\ufb01\ufb01t\ufb01j.T; AV CRIMINAL APPEAL ;’A(o;t_A8ft8:v2\/;;E;'(‘) O;25* _ Between: 1. Smt.3ayashee|ath”ma _ W\/0 late Boraiah; ‘A Aged about 55 yAea_r’s\u00bb,, V […]<\/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-175001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 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\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-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=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-10T11:49:07+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T11:49:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2226,\"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\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T11:49:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 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":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 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\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-10T11:49:07+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T11:49:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":2226,"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\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009","name":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T11:49:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-jayasheelamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Jayasheelamma vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 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\/175001","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=175001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175001\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}