{"id":223023,"date":"2010-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-03T04:24:12","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T22:54:12","slug":"sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit And K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 2:?' DAY 01:' SE}P'1\"\u00a5\u00a3Z\\%IBE:1I{_.;2f\u00a7'%.i_:\"(}.V_v\nPRESENT %  V %  A'\nTHE HONBLE MR JUSTICE-..V_ Q   ,1 u  \nAND: \n\nTHE HONBLE MR JUS  K G'0f\u00bb\u00bbIND;%\u00a7:i;F*\u00ab.THi}. CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA\nPRAYINSTO Q1JASI'i \"F}-{E IMPUG-NED ORDER DATED\n08.07.2009 VPASSED IN APPLICATION I956\/2002 BY\nTHE? KARNA.'I\"AKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VICE\n\n A;'I*vENE\u00a3XU\u00a7%E~B,  IIII \n\n    -- ITIIIS\"' INRIT PETITION BEING RESERVED AND\nI:OIvIING:._ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS\n\nTIIIS ,IJAjI--',' K GOVINSARAJULU J., MADE'. TIIS\nPOI..LO.WINO:\n\n\n\nORIDEZR\nApplicant in Application 310.1956\/2002 on the \ufb01ie\nof the Karnatztka Administrative '1':'ibunal, is\n\nthe p\u00e9stitiortczt' in this Writ petition.\n\n2. The case of the  is -:t.ht:tt'._h_\u00e9\"'Vixras\n\nappointed as a part time t.eachor.. along  \"two '=tn'or\u00e9'--..\n\nappiicants visa, M Govindart\u00e9ghand MV\"I;aks}:3ni\u00a7.;1arayana\n\napplicants in 7829\/ roop\u00e9votiveiy on\nthe fiie of the  Tribunal,\n\n(heroin \"\u00e91I\u00b0tet}fin ) Banggalore in the year 1988\u00bb\n\n89 vvith - per month.\n3' 'Th\u00e9r,Va;5p1ic:aI:t:_\u00a7;1ong with ot.h(~:r appiicatats have\n\n '_  t.h'e'-Va,o_t_i_o:1 of the State w}1en the State tried\n'  .disc;ont::._fiue_ their services. It is further pieadeci that\n\n\"th\u00e9Vt'petit'fon\u00e91:r and others were selectxad as t.eaCh_ers of\n\n\u00a7\"\"Iigh,f3f'2. Primary Schools on I:'{igL1L':'t1' basis, were\n\nA  Ahvgitgipoiitted for the post in the year 1994. Regularisyation\n\n'1..,~,.~\n\n\n\nwas not done; increments were not granted. So, the\n\npetitioner along with the other applicants M\n\nIekshmineirayazia and M Goviradarajti is _\n\ngiven a rep3feseI1tat.ioIi that as_per of the\"\n\nHiorfbie High Court, they are e'1\";tit?g'ed ifot\u00bb.regiL1i3;i'i:s.g1tiaj;n.\n\nand also co-risequentiai be;'1de:f-:.ts. High COtivi\"'f:If1aSVVp\u00e9\u00a3SS\u20ac(f. '\n\nthe order for   The\norder of this C0tiv1~'t~,ft1'5.  Verified by the\nconcerned authoritie-S\"  that the writ\npetitions      Amanda\n Sathyaraju and not by\nthe  a departmentai inquiry is\n\ninitiated. ia\u00a33'etitiot1ei\"'vh\u00e9i's\u00a7Vdenied the charge of submitting\n\n th'e.'<'dioetered doe1;i'frrienti After izzqtiiry, the inquiririg\n\n  "h'e5Id_1.thate the charge is proved. A second Show\n\neattse .11e7_tifee is issued. Thereafter, by an order dated\n\n x7,12:2i(?aUO, the applicant is dismissed from service. It is\n\n  contended that the appeals preferred are also\n\n V. ._ ..dismiseed.\n\n\n\n4. It is the further ease of the petitioner that this\norder dated 7.12.2000 is ehaiienged before KAT \n\nhas not considereci the vit.aI aspects of the c_e;s'e.\u00ab' i.\n\nof the Karnataka Civil Services (Ciassifie-:tt_:i:o:1v,'*1}C0ntrot\u00bb .e \n\nAnd Appeal} Ruies. 195? proyidesiAA.ffo4i*i\u00bb.i\ufb01ro-eedeuregto\nconduct an inquiry. Wit:-1.__oL1t:Viieoiiidueiirigi.:4si,1eh \ninquiry, the order is passezir-,v:Petitioriet ready and\n\nwilling to face even 'a.riy_ktnci'o\ufb01iriqiuiiry. Petitioner is\n\n_ interested in fi<n(v:1ing,0'ut-- :t'he'*tr'2,_1th.V';41riti.v"that he has not\n\nsubm;ittfet1-tagiiedoetereiti._o1-oc1itii'e11't. These aspects being\n\nnot cvo:1sidereti':.ij3rhV contends that the order\n\npassed  KV!?(i'AA1%.s ii\u00e9ibte to be interfered with by this\n\n  power under Articie 227 of the\n\n  'Co\ufb01sti't:itio'11._of India.\n\n"  Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently\n\n"CQ1"'1:t.\u20acI1CiS that a charge is said to be framed. To prove\n\n V. _..the charge, there is at speetfi.e provision eontroilirtg the\n\n\\;\u00ab....,.\u00bb\n\n\n\n(3\n\nmethod of inquiry. Under Rule 11 of the Karnataka\n\nCivil Servicee (C1aSSi\ufb01(f'c1.tiO1"\u00a3. Crmtzfol and Appe:1})"Rt;1es\n\n1957 provides for procedure to conduct   \nclient is i.m;e1*eSt.ed in finding out .t,.he truih."  =15" "\n\nnot 3. party to the so called pro:d11i\u00a7_i.1c3'h   \n\ndocument. So, the iindiV11g\u00b0'g;iven"'is notv.Va"\u00ab~._iinc1i:ig in-'\n\ncompliance of the prixicipies---o_f "*;131$ura1 jigieficef So, ihe\n\ninquiry is vitiated. _iprayf?i'or ii\u00e9ehigiiside the order of\n\nKAT.\n\n "A"c'i\u00a3i\u00abVV1'i,ior2\u00ab:\u00ab,'iI'"Government, Advocate for\nrespo-:_1de:1ts'   other hand contends that\n\nthe High 4Cou'r=t._ inquiry is held, it in\naceordaneie }5vii:.iji'.'-  V'I):i'OC\u20aci?d113."\u20ac preeeribed under law,\n\nr6:':\u00a3:i\u00b0i%=01f1_;2iblV\u20ac; oapportunity is given to the petitioner.\n\n\u00bb :pe"g.it.io:n\u00a7:I*haxffing pa::'i;ieipated, having received the first\n\n ._Sh_o\\v"'vrzfaue-s\u00a7_'viiotice second Show Cause notice how,\n\no2;;moi:~  back. So, pray for dismissa.1 of the writ,\n\n'  petition,\n\n\n\n7.  have given careful Consideration.\nC0nf.er1t,1'0us of the COE11'1S\u20ac} appearing for  \n\nscrutinized the material on l'(~:CO}Td~ \n\n8. Rule 11 of s\u00e9mce- \n(C1assificat.ion, Control  }&ppea1)\ufb02"vvR1.:eVEe 1957',\n\nprescribe procedure  ::'1'Irip\u00a73siti0r3 of major\n\npunishment,  \n\n  K :;"TRiPA'm+11 vs STATE BANK\nOF 1ND:A  4:3) has held that scope of\n\nnatural j1j'siiee.Vdepe_n\u20ac:'\u00a3\u00e9 upon particular facts situation\n\n'  zmdi'e.\u00a3.;*e:_;msi:aI:eVeS"ef\u00a7f each case"\n\n1O: i.--AV'I1nexure A8 is the letter attached to the\n\n AAc:ha.rg'e__AAi11en10. Charge memo is ciateci 23.11.1998 and\n\n   annexed to the charge memo is dated 30.1 1.1998.\n\n V. __::Er1 the charge meme, there is a mention that there is 21\n\n.=\u00a3_.,_M,W.\n\n\n\nprima facie ziiatcrial \u20acVidfi'I]C\u20ac in regard to the Charges.\nIt refers to the xerox Copy of izhe order of this Court\nbeing fui"ni.she:e:i and it being doctered, ii: ifs:;.""\u00bb.a}so\n\ncontended in the charges based upon \n\ndocuments, the petiitioner has  ._ Vi \n\nreguiarisation, increnients in  \nis in pursuance of this, thei"?'.:'\nexchequer in a sum of \/- .i.'\u00a3\"i to five )of\np\u20ac'1'SOI1S Who affi   obtaining\n\nthe regularisation. Iii-isv.haIsO  'false affidavit is\n\nfu_r;1ishi\u00e9diiiii\u00a7g;%  a'p;:5;I'icaiii\"\"bii 1.6.1989, 20.7.1994.\n\nWage is obtained \n\n1.<\/pre>\n
1.”;_allapura..’Ta11,{k. So.
\nallegations are false; ‘e.h’arges  ..\u00e9an\u00bbn0t be sustained<\/p>\n
le all . ‘i’hen..< llof the char es
\ng Y _  , .:PY_._  g<\/p>\n
sepaJfately.– he"'C\u00e9tnn0t be found fault for
\nthe see-1cti.of1 lireiml\ufb01ureemeiqt of the salary. It is the<\/p>\n
fault_ of lliifaev r)fi7iee'rsV""(l)i' the Department who have<\/p>\n
'  eC;mrri.i't.tedz wit,h "'\u00e9i'"vtew to make u.r:\u00a3awfL1.1 and illegal<\/p>\n
not submitted (\u00ab,1 copy of the order of this<\/p>\n
Cezf;,1rt tvit:h the representation.\n<\/p>\n
,.  A’m1e:s:ure A14 is the letter by the petitioner<\/p>\n
 ‘berm. Peti.ti0t1er contends that list of witnesses,<\/p>\n
documents sought to be relied by the Department are not<\/p>\n
served upon him. Request. to engage the se1~vi(:vesf”~o:i5’~iE.he<\/p>\n
learned advocate is not Considered. The i_’riqtiii*y5[‘offi\u20ac:ei*<\/p>\n
has not Coriciueted the ii1.qtiiry’__with Cii_1\u00e9MC”‘,&1.–.T.”._\u20ac. “oa{1tjg;.:;,”<\/p>\n
closed the inquiry within two deiys, ;i’i1qtii1t’y._ is ‘eo1’ii,fa1f\u00a7r\u00a51.t:><\/p>\n
the evidence on record, “o’n._ suspicion iand..’v\u00ab-vsuriinises.,”<\/p>\n
findings are given, grounds the are not
\nconsidered by the  the discipiinary
\nauthority, reqti-ests  :’E:’\u00e9?i.1.1999 to the
\nCharge    also reply dated
\n14-. IO;    dated 29.9.1999 has<\/p>\n
also to be ‘co11si:jfe1feidp.\u00b0~.t_ .. ‘<\/p>\n
it 13. ‘i’hew-..inate:ria1 pieced in AI1I1\u20acX’t3I’\u20ac A14 would<\/p>\n
\u00bb  theieharge memo is issued on 30.11.3998. Reply”<\/p>\n
H  the petitioner on 18.1.i999 i.e., more<\/p>\n
“\u00a3.1′.1tii”1  days is given to the pet1’.ti.oner to submit his reply.<\/p>\n
  “Si::i_ii1d’i*’1y, after ’35 days, the petitioner has submitted his<\/p>\n
 to the show cause notice. Sitting of the inquiry<\/p>\n
‘iioificter on i8.1.i999 a.i:i.d 1.3.1999 is asserted and it is<\/p>\n
categorised as ‘hurrieci siiti:1g’ almesi: 11%;: 1110:1t.h’s time gap<\/p>\n
is found in between two siiiings. Nothing is  to<\/p>\n
su’pp01.”*i. that the i.r.1quiry is violative of the . ;\u00a7f:>’i”i:’1~:%q1’f:)–\u00a7.e’;s:\u00a7-‘.__O5’1” _<\/p>\n
naii:L’1r.21i justice. ‘Fi.r11e spent. for inqt:.iryv–..:sBa1:3\u00a7:Q:”\u20ac’.A \u00e9hev<\/p>\n
contention of the learned AGA.   3  1<\/p>\n
14. The Inquiry Officer Sn1’i’..Ml;feEagahahi refer” <\/p>\n
version of the witnesses viz, Sriizaripresad -2;1″1’\u20ac_1 eiceepteci the<\/p>\n
evidence of the witness;\n<\/p>\n
prove’, pa1’tici\u00a7$2;’ti;3ur1~  petitioner in the inquiry
\nproceedinghs. ree.eiV51dg_ “0–I’_ ihe benefits under the doctored<\/p>\n
d0cLm1er1i:, “i:i:;\u00a3ec1.27.'(a3.”i991_ in win 7037 to 7041 of 1990.
\nTrjj\u00e9-:Llp}:\u00a7or\u00a7 the }ii0r:.i:e:’1′{ion that the inquiry is not conducted<\/p>\n
~  with Ruie 11, copy of the impmation is not<\/p>\n
 .fti’r_;1Ais’i’1e’:;i.,._ \\vitv2*i’ess iisf: is moi, iizrzlished. assist.ar1ce of the<\/p>\n
ac\u00a5__voCa1;e ‘is—hot furnished, is not found in the course of the<\/p>\n
c:c:\u00bbr\u00a3<33e:1\u00e9':":i, ef the inquiry. So, the c:omeni,ion of the Ieamed<\/p>\n
V' Asadjaocziie for the petitiener ihat the inquiry is V'itiat:ed and<\/p>\n
'Dad for n0n–ee:np1ia:nc:e of princziples of na1.u1'a1 jusiice and
\npiiyzeiples in Section N of the Keimaizika Civil $\u20ac.I_'ViCf3S<\/p>\n
(Ciassifieaiiori. Control and Appeal) Rules. 1957 <\/p>\n
So the conclusion of the Tribunai that even aissiimiirigiih\u00e9xt <\/p>\n
petitioner has not produced .'.-h'e~..<ji0c'ie're'\u00a7i"-idoeuiiiefii. Vi<\/p>\n
petitioner eouici have produced t:I"i"ei Ct.-eiyiivof Tithe' <\/p>\n
High Court in we No.703'.?'.i:\u00a3:-V..f7'<::–~:Li'V-of 1990 i~?\u00a7pres\u00e9nt:ngV.i'<\/p>\n
that he is entitled to the benefif.:0?regu1a1'i.sat:iQr;_:ind saiary
\nis justified and (fees tiet\ufb01 i'I4'i"[4;'3:Vi'f.Cf'i'C.f'IC\u20ac in exercise of<\/p>\n
the writ Jurisdiction 01-"'Ehi*&=, :C0\u00a31.\u20ac.i':s,_<\/p>\n
 iiiii  Ei\u00e9g\u00e9<\/p>\n
 .<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit And K.Govindarajulu IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2:?’ DAY 01:’ SE}P’1″\u00a5\u00a3Z\\%IBE:1I{_.;2f\u00a7’%.i_:”(}.V_v PRESENT % V % A’ THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE-..V_ Q ,1 u AND: THE HONBLE MR JUS […]<\/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-223023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - 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-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-02T22:54:12+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=\"8 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-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\\\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T22:54:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":684,\"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-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\\\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T22:54:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\\\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - 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-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-02T22:54:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T22:54:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010"},"wordCount":684,"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-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010","name":"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T22:54:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sardar-ahmed-so-d-i-khasim-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-24-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Sardar Ahmed S\/O D I Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/223023","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=223023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}