{"id":57164,"date":"2009-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009"},"modified":"2014-05-08T11:47:40","modified_gmt":"2014-05-08T06:17:40","slug":"ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Jawad Rahim<\/div>\n
1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nAT BANGALORE\n\nDated this the 23?\" day Of November, 2009\n1% E FO RE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD   -.\n\nCriminal Revision Petition N0 248 Of  1\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nAMBU\nS\/O PONNAYYA\n\nAGE : 40 YEARS\n\nR\/O NEAR ASHOKA TALKIES\n\nKUNNIGOLI      \nMANGALORE TALUK, DR'   _     PETITIONER\n\n{By Sri K C13I1\u00e91AI_1c11,1:*a11:I1;~.?V;1t1f1\u00ab._1:VX'1*AI.::%;;f.i~.HH,_Adv]\n\nAND:  \"\"  -  .\nTHE STATE OF = 1\n\nREPTD BY PUBLIC PROSECUITOR\nMANGALORP; \" _ ' A . = V  RESPONDENT\n1 {By'SI1{iVRajEI Subrahmanya Bhat, HCGP]\n\n C'R1I.rIIN.AL REVISION PBZTITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION\n\n S9? --.R\/'WV4=O'1I. OE'_'I'I-IE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING\nA;'\u20acgIDE'~1'H.~E JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 5--09--2008,\n\nPASSED 'By.  PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT.\nMANGALORE. DK, IN CRL APPEAL NO 410 OF 2005, CONFIRMING\nTHE\"JUDGMENT DATED 23-11-2005 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE\n\n  [JR DN] 18: JMFC, MOODABIDRI, EN CC N0 1211 OF' 2005.\nx   CONVICTIN THE PETITIONER OF THE) OF F ENCESPUNISRABLE\n UNDER SECTIONS 279, 337, 338 ANND 304{A] IPC AND E'FC..\n\na'*?'*\n\n\n\n2\n\nTHIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR\nHEARING. THIS BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOINING:\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Convicted accused is in revision petition <\/p>\n
judgment in Criminai Appeal No 41;O.\u00bb.of’200’\u00a7,”Vtj’g\u00a7:t’edIE\u00a79\u00bb\u00a72QVO8,. <\/p>\n
passed by the Judge, Fast Track Cogurt,’iiv’\u00e9anIga_l’ore,  <\/p>\n
the judgment dated 23-11-2Io o5_m CC:_No_iI2_’1A’i_;’o~t…2*o0S, ed
\nthe file of Civil Judge (Jr Dn)VAga.nId\u00bbv.}_Ni”EC, E~.\/fo’od.b’idrI, convicting
\nthe petitioner–accused\u00b0 tor.  punishable under<\/p>\n
Sections 279, 3:9, 338″and:l3o\u00a7l(A\u00bb)_V.1i5C.\u00ab,I I I<\/p>\n
2.  learned counsei for the
\npetitioner;a’cc:\u00e9ise_d’I3.a’rncl::’S:ri Ra};IaWSubrahmanya Bhat, learned
\nHCGP appe’aring_fo:’the~resp’ondent–State, in supplementation<\/p>\n
of the .materi at on reco rd I I<\/p>\n
 “petition’e’r””was prosecuted, tried and uitimately<\/p>\n
 oif\ufb02the ailegation that on 16–1~1998 at around<\/p>\n
 driving a bus run under the name and style<\/p>\n
I’-r.’AdityaT,__ibearing Regn No KA 19 – 6363 in a rash and<\/p>\n
“”Iruve_gijiA’gent manner and while passing on the rnain road at<\/p>\n
at<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Panjinadka in Adhikarabettu village of Mangaiore taluk, he
\nlost controi due to his rash and negligent act and consequent<\/p>\n
to which the bus hit against to residential  to<\/p>\n
one Upendra N Prabhu. Due to the impact__o’f~.th’e:co’,liislioin,a’~__<\/p>\n
portion of the house of said  Pr’a_bh’u-\n<\/p>\n
and passengers in the bugs _4sust’a.in”ed injVu~i.ies’,  two
\npersons lost their lives.   was
\nsubmitted to the ljpendrawiil Prabhu, on
\nthe basis of which, a  charge sheet was<\/p>\n
filed.\n<\/p>\n
4. ToT__,su’sta”m5<.:the  prosecution examined 32
\nwitness_es\u00ab_andV"got.:rnar'i<ed*=.48"documents. The accused put
\nup a defence vofltotall "di\u00e9'_nial. The trial court analyzed the<\/p>\n
evide,n'ce~ and Vkeeping\u00e9vin mind the evidence on record, found<\/p>\n
 ,'th'at':Vitsuch a nature as to nullify the incriminating<\/p>\n
1"aspe,ctsV"* il\ufb01qariljihfelsting from the clear evidence of the<\/p>\n
V \u00abV pros'ecu"tion'."" Thus, the petitioner–accused was convicted for<\/p>\n
Huh'itlfitiieioffelnces punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and<\/p>\n
-3   of IPC and consequential imposed sentence of varying<\/p>\n
W’<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
periods of imprisonment. Assailing the judgment and<\/p>\n
conviction, the petitioner–accused preferred an vabpeai in<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No 410 of 2005, reiterating…the__’_i:4n!ea..’ of<\/p>\n
innocence, which also came to be rejected__by..th:e”~jVodgr’nent’i__<\/p>\n
dated 5-9-2008. Aggrieved byiboth”these-I’ljuidlgmelnlts,V’:theT.___ <\/p>\n
petitioner-accused is in revision here.\n<\/p>\n
5. Sri K Chandranath  iearned”:–counsel for the
\nDetitionerwaccused coVn’tend_s’A”m5\/\u00a7.’h that the accused
\nhad not hit against    itself shows that
\nthe accident\u00bb  his)vgnejgllilglence, but due to the
\nreasons__beyon’d:lV*1.:hiVs’  normai course, if the<\/p>\n
negligence ‘waVs”‘Vi”ne”caus,e”‘of’ accident, road users will be the<\/p>\n
first victirns. ” VInVl’th’e.’.inst”a-nit case, no road user was affected,<\/p>\n
on  other  the vehicle traversed from the main road<\/p>\n
 and;carne.Ai-nicontact with a building. This happened because<\/p>\n
 Vfa”cAti*g–th’.atV.the accused wanted to save the lives of the<\/p>\n
pas’s”eng–eVrs”‘and traversed the vehicle from the main road, as<\/p>\n
  was uncontrollable.\n<\/p>\n
aisglx<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
6. Learned counsel would further submit that the
\nprosecution has not established firstly that the accused was<\/p>\n
the driver of the bus. He submits that in the.~\u00abcorn’:p_iia’.irjiit’,on<\/p>\n
the basis of which the prosecution was init.iat:ed., alfpersonf<\/p>\n
name Sathya was said to be the d’riAveir”‘\u00abof’1’tl’1~e:”b,u.;\u00a7,,K_3i’heT~.__ <\/p>\n
petitioner is not Sathya, but his  is  A’ $;:.:,,,’ceV’Vtiie
\ncomplaint had indicated only’on:eSathva.VaAsthewntdriver, there
\nwas no question of  without sufficient
\nmateriai evidence regard_i’ng_points out to the
\nevidence of to   and 32, to submit
\nthat none   the identify of the driver
\nand  not established. Learned
\ntrial jumd’ge’–loVst’  vital aspect in the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence while:’con’victing’:the petitioner-accused. In appeal,<\/p>\n
“V”~..,thdug’ha.j’isame grounds were urged, but the same were<\/p>\n
iearned judge of the first appellate court.<\/p>\n
The.refo_re,lleawrned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.taking”i.nto consideration the grounds urged, this court may<\/p>\n
  gx”V’set,_ars’icEe the judgments impugned and set free the accused.<\/p>\n
6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7. Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned HCGP, appearing
\nfor the respondent-State, drawing my attention””*.to the<\/p>\n
evidence on record, submits that the convi.ctiAo’n’_””0f\u00b0 the<\/p>\n
accused is in order as he was driving theWofi’end1iA_ng’4venicie;~__<\/p>\n
He submits that the prosecution  \u00abpart’iex.arnined’V_i?iiii25T~.._ <\/p>\n
Muralidhara Saralava, Dowerof attorney holiierfgfof”th”tef.owriegr
\nof the offending bus, to estab’i’i’s:h’\u00bbth\\at.  a notice
\nissued under Section of*’the:i91oto’i–..gveh\u00e9icies\ufb02vixct, 1988, a
\nrepiy was sent furnishinggthefd’etaiis;-of ‘Afti_1e’.vehic|e, driver and
\naiso the invo,i~venj:ent    accident wherein
\nDetitionersi.  ”’He also refers to the<\/p>\n
eviderjcemofi;i\u00a7\\ii\/35′},”VMu:ku.:nda  the investigating officer,<\/p>\n
I who had. issued  the owner of the offending bus.<\/p>\n
He als_o reffers to.’.the’~. evidence of PW7 Kusuma Shetty and<\/p>\n
.–,,-_,P’W”3,.”‘:RatVhn’a,,’Saiifa\u00e9nfwvho have spoken about the accident as<\/p>\n
  the accused was the driver of the iH–fated<\/p>\n
  that the identify of the driver is, therefore,<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.unquesti__onable and as the accident is not disputed, it is for<\/p>\n
“‘*V’th.e_pietitioner to show how it occurred. Since he tendered no<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation, the evidence on record as stood is unchalienged<\/p>\n
and it should be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
8. Keeping in mind the submissions <\/p>\n
sides, I have examined the record.  l\\i_eces’sa’r’iiv,’;vthe e-merice. <\/p>\n
on record has to be considered ~”see~. ”\n<\/p>\n
established that the petitionerjwzas the idrivehgjoi’ii;\u00ab;ie..xrehiclein
\nquestion. In this regard,greuferen.c_\u00bbe  grade to the
\nevidence of PW1 UpVe”ndr22.  had lodged the
\ncompliant. Accordhing :to”hi:?h,  situate on the side
\nof the\ufb02saccident occurred on
\n  about 8.00 am. He has
\nidentified  and has also stated that it was
\nproceedin’g:_’_’at hit against a portion of his<\/p>\n
house vPW3V”Ra.th_naA:Saiian, a passenger of the vehicle, has<\/p>\n
 :As:pol\u00a7en_j__fact that on the date of accident, she had<\/p>\n
i”‘ooa~rded   and was travelling to go to Kolekkadi, and<\/p>\n
the’_.””dri\\;4e.r”viias driving the vehicle at a high speed and at<\/p>\n
 SCOO am on the day of accident lost controi and hit<\/p>\n
~’  againlst a house. She identified the petitioner by his iook<\/p>\n
gmiix<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
while in the witness box. Though she was questioned in the
\ncross-examination that she was seeing the accusedfor the<\/p>\n
first time in the court, she had denied those..sug__g’ejsti’ons.<\/p>\n
PW7 — another witness by name Kusuma l’has*also’=__<\/p>\n
tendered similar evidence and :;sdhel::depo\u00absedA’t_ha.t~._sh’Ve,_,vwas’4~.__ “V<\/p>\n
travelling in the ill–fated bus, on thiegday ofgatcildeht ‘and she
\nsustained injuries due to the””n’i\u00bbnipact of~.th”e~.’accideVnt. She
\nalso identified the accused driver ovfithve vehicle in<\/p>\n
question.\n<\/p>\n
9. Ther6,.,i\u00e97~.,,  ?_\u20acO”‘w.the”‘:e:vidence of the other
\nwitnesses,   Saralaya had appeared
\nbeforeijthe   terms deposed that he was the
\npower of  the owner of the bus in question.\n<\/p>\n
He has ,.produ’ce_d”‘ExP’9 —- reply to the notice issued under<\/p>\n
 the MV Act, furnishing the Particulars of the<\/p>\n
  reply, apart from the details regarding the<\/p>\n
bus”,-. it .i_s’mentioned that the accused was the driver of the<\/p>\n
J’sai,d__ bus at the relevant point of time, who was called by<\/p>\n
 Sathya @ Ambu. The said evidence directly<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nestabiishes that the petitioner-accused was the driver of the
\nvehicie in question. The accused has not disputedthat he<\/p>\n
was employed by the owner of Adidya bus \u00bb.He<\/p>\n
does not dispute the report submitted  fh’efnc\u00e9’;__<\/p>\n
merely because the compiaint  <\/p>\n
driver as Sathya does not appears”to”be on,V.s’uch’ a n\u00b0atuire”as<\/p>\n
to nullify the effect of the direct..Vevidence~.0nrecord.<\/p>\n
10. Therefore, I am””‘of–thefview”Vtha:t’~the trial court has
\nrightly acceptedsuch ev’id’erice.”aijnd.V_heid:..that the accused was
\nthe driver __0f.,tl*.e_ ti-.mevvof_ accident, which, the
\nappelia,nt..co’urt’, i’;-a:s,.a:so .ri’ght$s,i.i\/\\nfirmed.<\/p>\n
11.  aspects of the case, it is<\/p>\n
noticed thwat-.even: ithou_gh~~”the petitioner-\u00bbaccused has said that<\/p>\n
-‘W,_he._’:ifi3as,>__riothing’Atovv–d-swith the accident, but the prosecution<\/p>\n
V.V,,’wit’ri’esses’have-.cieariy stated that he was driving the bus at<\/p>\n
high”bspeed}7i__ :’The fact that the vehicle having hit against a<\/p>\n
portifon\ufb01orf the house of the complainant cieariy indicate that<\/p>\n
“:f”thVei””~bus was moving in a rash and negligent manner.<\/p>\n
  Otherwise, the accused couid have averted the accident. The<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
punishable under Section 279 IPC and six months
\nImprisonment for the offence punishable unde,r”-.Section<\/p>\n
304(A) IPC. As far as the offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 337 and 338 are concerned, thedtrilali  <\/p>\n
imposed any separate imprIsonn’1ent’,’onathe .lb_als_iVsVvVthat’1the’.__ <\/p>\n
petitioner–accused has been
\noffences punishable under   and  Is_PC. ’tilt
\nIs also brought to mvv*.notIc,e””tha_t  afterrrthe conviction
\nrecorded by the trial coullrtalnrd first appellate
\ncourt, the  has~?.b:’e_en tdaxen into custody and
\nis in  As such, as of now, the
\npetitioneltarclcusedffdnaslj’ft-.,n’de’ro’on’e;imprisonment for a period
\nof more’\u00abtha.n  approximately five months. If<\/p>\n
at ailthe rnax’imu’,m s_en”tence is imposed, his imprisonment<\/p>\n
  be fora peri’od”of six months for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
,_”uv’nci_er,.”304(A) IPC. Taking into account all these<\/p>\n
circ__’umsta.n”cesi:; explained by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
“i.,,petitio’n_er;, I am satisfied that while confirming the conviction<\/p>\n
“def, petitioner–accused for the aforesaid offences, the order<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
regarding sentence needs to be modified by scaling down it to<\/p>\n
the period of imprisonment already undergone by <\/p>\n
13. In the result, the conviction of the petiitiori\u00abe_r-.a_ct:used<\/p>\n
for the offences punishable under Sections;2*7El,]3:3′?:, 3,33,:’a’nd””‘~-0<\/p>\n
304(A) IPC, as recorded by the trial  of’<\/p>\n
2005 dated 23-11-2005 and -a.ffirmez_:l”‘inV ap;{J:ie.a!,..,EV.nVV jcriiminie-\u00bbl<\/p>\n
Appeal No 410 of 2005 dated  ‘is’co_nfirn9i:ed.<\/p>\n
14. However, the ord’er’regl’ar(iing\ufb02seintence is modi\ufb01ed. For
\nthe offence .Vpu:ni.shablVe”:’ ‘u~nde,~,:”5\u00a7ctio\u00abn” 304(A) IPC, the
\nimprisonmentisp so-afiyed  six months to the period of
\nimprisipnmenit’fie-,iVre_a’dy”u_nd.er-gone by the petitioner–accused.
\nRest of th.eorde’r-  sentence is maintained. Since the<\/p>\n
acc’u.jsede.,has.V aiready undergone imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
Viirnore “four months and say, up to five months, the<\/p>\n
 is ordered to be released forthwith, if his<\/p>\n
cust-0dy.”is -not required in any other case.<\/p>\n
xv'”,j=.i5f.i—._,,’Registry is directed to send a copy of the operative<\/p>\n
 hportiion of this order to the officer in–charge of the prison,<\/p>\n
843\/<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
where the petitioner–accused is under detention to Venable the<\/p>\n
release of the accused as ordered in this revision “pte’ti.t;i–onv,.<\/p>\n
16. The revision petition is disposed of  i<\/p>\n
‘Rik ”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009 Author: Jawad Rahim 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 23?” day Of November, 2009 1% E FO RE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD -. Criminal Revision Petition N0 248 Of 1 BETWEEN: AMBU S\/O […]<\/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-57164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAmbu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 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\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-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=\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-08T06:17:40+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ambu S\\\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-08T06:17:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1866,\"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\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Ambu S\\\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-08T06:17:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ambu S\\\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 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":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 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\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-08T06:17:40+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-08T06:17:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009"},"wordCount":1866,"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\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009","name":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-08T06:17:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ambu-so-ponnayya-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-23-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ambu S\/O. Ponnayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 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\/57164","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=57164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}