{"id":69262,"date":"2009-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-14T23:05:18","modified_gmt":"2019-01-14T17:35:18","slug":"sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
-;-\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF MAY 2009  \n\nBEFORE Q\nTHE HN'13LE MR.JUS'}'ICE SUBHASH..B . ADI Ifjj  %\ncmmzmu. PETITION       \" \n\nBETWEEN: A'  %% \"\n\nS. ivappa Bhaxamappa Satmer,\n\nAged about 63 years, \n\nS\/0. Bharamappa Sanner; '_ '_\n\nRetired Joint Sirector of  - .\n\nSocial Weliiane, Bangalore, ami7 V\n\nResident ofI{od village,   --  \"  1 \u00abV \nHiIBkC\ufb021IT81uk,3i'i\u00e93'IC?'i D1str_i__.<:t...~'    .. VPETITIONER\n(By Sri. C.V. N2ig;esii;V  2'1':-,{i\\.*.:-5}.)\n\nAND:\n\nThe   \nBureau of Invcstigatiolig.' . \nKarnataka Lokayuktha,  =\n\nvidhang' Vagdhi, \ufb01a\ufb01lgalom. 'If Rmsmmmam'\n\n' ._(t3y  R\u00e9jepdra Vl\u00e9\u00e9idy, Adv.)\n\n" . .' Petition is \ufb01led undar Sec\ufb01ezu 482 of Cr.P.C.\n\n%  pxaymg tg.~q:;,a;sh the F'.i.R. in L.A.C Cr.No.35\/94 by the 9.1.\n 'bureau ryfixxvesfiga\ufb01on, Karxxataka. Lokayuktha (On the \ufb01le of\n"   S..}., Bangalom City.\n\n Cm\u00e9gdie the following:\n\n  "  Pzitition coming 021 for Hcaaring this day, the Court\n0 R D E R.\n\nIn this Criminal Petition. petitioner has sought for\nq11aShing of the First infozmation Repott in\n\nL-.A.C.Cr.N0.35\/1994 \ufb01ied by the Peiice Inspector, Bureau cvf\n\nC :3\n'%"$_,\\;i",:l-=-\n\n\n\n-2-\n\ninvestigation, Kamataka Lokayuktha submitted before the City\n\nCivil and Sessions Judge, Specie} Court, Bangalore an\n\noffence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read  :_:13\n\nsub-section (2) of the Prevention of Conup\ufb01oltr \n\nreferred to as 'the Act').\n\n2. Lokayuktha Police eregistereri.. "3 V \n\nNo.35\/1994 on 21" Maneh 199_\u00e9fr\u00ab:\u00a7;~   p\u00e9unishable\nunder Section 13(1)  reed  13(2) of the Act,\nalleging that the peti\ufb01oner..w.:sec1rseafiL\u00bb ass' &:\u00bb\u00e9g:f Investigation, Kamataka Lokayuktha to\n\n    said offence. In pursuance of the said\n  Vthe Police Inspector re\ufb01stered the crime and\n  irrves\ufb01gat:ion and submitted a report to the higher\n  intemlia observing that there is no material against\n\n '  _ '4\"r};e\"';)etitio31er -- accused to proceed with and alleged that the\n\nproceedings require to be dropped. it appears that the\n\nAddi\ufb01onal Director Genera} of Poiice ('A.D.G.P.' for short)\n\n\n\nentrusted the matter for fresh investigation to one\n\nSr3I.S.V.Shash.idhar, Poiice inspector and he also  his\n\n\ufb01nal report on 313.199? interalia stating that, 'the\n\npetitioner are not disproportionate to the    \nincome. The A.D.G.P. observing     1\n\nirregularities in the ixlvcstigatio-.I_1, as  \u00ab'inoo'1i1r:Vof\n\nthe deiinquent animal, the p\u00e9\ufb01\ufb01oner has 35: been\nConsidered by the   a1't<'i'""e\ufb01"txusted the\ninvestigation to another     the peti\ufb01oner\nhas \ufb01led    quashiil\ufb01 of the\nprocee\ufb01iiigs   F-.1. R.\n\n3:  Counsel appearing for the\npeti\ufb01oner  an: vitiated, as there\n\nis no; provision-.eith\u00e9r tinder the Code of Criminal Procedure or\n\n \u00abo\ufb02tlef   of the Act conferring power on the\n\nV.,._A.Gt;P.:"'to"di1*eot \ufb01t-sh investigation: or re--investigat:ion of the\n\nmatter  investigated by an Inves\ufb01gating G\ufb01oer\n\n"V'~.__V'-\u00bbauthofiseii under Section 1'? of the Act, and fresh or IE-\nV 'V'.jlIi'?f3$'1j.gatiOl1 is in pursuance of any authorisation granted\n\n  hyvtioder Section 17 of the Act. Secondly he submitted that, the\n\ncrime was remstemd on 218' March 1994, but till this petition\nwas \ufb01ied on 9&1 July 2003, no charge sheet or \ufb01nal report was\n\nsubmitted nor a report was submitted to the authority for\n\n\/'\n\nI'\n\nJ\n\n\n\n-4-\n\nsanction under Section 19 of the Act. He submitted that, there\nis no justi\ufb01abie explanation for the inordinate de1ny:.:"in not\ncomple\ufb01ng the investigation. He also 'under\nSection 17 of the Act, no Police Of\ufb01cer  b \nSuperintendent of Poiice or   b it. At\nany offence punishable under\ufb02ae ptovtsions  \nread with Section 13(2) of the and  V1_izeV"'in\u00a7\u00e9sngation'\nis required to be done 1' 'o\ufb01eer ' o\ufb01;aer"VE than the\nSuperintendent of Polisccyt   must specify\nthe reason as   tobe done by an\no\ufb01cer    the II proviso to\nSect;io::Vy'1'?ev   "xeg2{td, he referred to the order\npassedv:"'1:\u00a7)?'   Section 17 of the Act and\n\nsubmitted nowheren\ufb01e authority gives the reason as to\n\n A' wh3;\u00ab.\u00a7\u00ab;hg't':nattet"i-s.Ventzusted to an inspector of Police in the\n\n 'p:1aeeVofSu}::ef\u00a7.ntendent of Police. He submitted that, when the\n\n   particular act to be done in a pa1'n'cniar\n\n-V manizerftixe\u00e9ttnutilority has no newer to deviate \ufb01om the same.\n\nVt"\ufb02\u00ab.::He~esuhnintteei that, the pnocwciings on the \ufb01le of the Special\n\n.'   in pursuance of the FIR in law is not sustainable on the\n\n't   of delay, iaok of authority to investigate and further, the\n\nA.D.G.P. directing the \ufb02esh or rewinvestiga\ufb01on from one o\ufb01flcer\n\nto another Without having jurisciiotion. (\n\n\n\n-5-\n\n4. in support of his cotitention. he relied 03:1 a judgment of\nthis Court reported in 2002 CRI.L.J. 845 in the matter of\nor KARNATAKA AND ETC, -93- BNARAYANA REo.e1#':xs-iieg\u00e9int\nthis Court has observed that, the authority to  V'\nbe not less than the rank of Superiete'11d.ent-'_"oi' is it it\ncase if the investigation is to be dose  \nother than the Superintendent i\ufb01oiicei or tbeloxir  L'\nrank of Superintendent  --._sa11etioii.iugv.i\u00a7authox"ity\n\nmust assign the reasons. \n\n5. SI'iRa_i\u20aci"\u00a3tiiT.t3\u00a7:[:.R6d:\u00ae;1ya  aplaeaxixig for the\nLokayuktha   'k\u00a7..o~.G.P. being a higher\naut11o1'it\u00a7,2.V:i  matter and investigation\nis exitrustect  of Section 17 of the Act to\n\nthe Inspeetorof   ease if the higher authority \ufb01nds that\n\n'VV'th.ere'-its"  'i'11'"'tV11e investiga\ufb01on. it has power to Ie~\n\n either by himself or through any other\n\no\ufb01eeeand. Ittiis regard. the investigation was entrusted to\n\n  'another ~o\ufb01\u00a7r:er and investigation has been completed, however,\n\n  ottgt\u00e9count of the pendency of the proceedings before this\n\n  report has not been submitted. He also submitted\n\n'V V   it the \u00e9elay in completing the investigation is aiso explained\n\nin an a\ufb01ivzilavit filed by the A.D.G.P. on 13.12.2005.\nI\n\n\n\n-5-\n\n6. Insofar as the requirement under Section 1? of the Act,\nlearrmd Counsel for the zespomient submitted that, t11:\u20ac"\u00bborder\n\npasscd by the A.D.G.P. itsalf speci\ufb01caily stat.s5s_"" Zvth\u00e9e\n\ninvestigation has to be done by Inspector of  59 V' \n\nbe understood that the i11vestigatio_-ii \n\nonly by inspector of Poiice andjttherei\u00e9is t1QxI'6aS\u00bb.(:)V)'L_; 1:(3' \n\nauthority granted to the Inspstiior of 'P.c.\u00a71it:e_".'_:  furthetf\n\nsubmitted that, there is -"13g  '1u".e'_ Of\ufb01oeftn exerdse ofpower under Section 1 7\nA 'V'~v\u00a3)_]:\"\u00a3']4'i\u00a3'.V_'Pi'f3l}8T\u00a3t1'OII of Corruption Act, 1988 and if the\n'  C\ufb01icer submits his repert, whether the\n.-._S\u00e9mc\u00a5ioning authority has power ta rednazestigate\n\n\" _ the matter?\n\n\"  \u00ab{2} Whether the investigation by :1 Poiice Officer is\n\nin oorgfsmriiy with five pmvisiens ofSeci:'on 1 3*' of the\nPreveniiasz of Corruption Act?\n\n(3) Whether the delay is fata! to the trial?\n\n(,1;\n\n\n\n8. it is not in dispute that the crime was registered on 215*\n\nMarch 1994. It is aleo not in dispute that, till this pe\ufb01\ufb02nhnetwas\n\n\ufb01led on 9th July 2003, no \ufb01nal report was submitted;\"'1i<\u00a71fVV"i:3\n\nany sanction fer gzvmsecntion under Section 19.  3 9 \n\naf\ufb01davit has been \ufb01led by the  *[_cV)'n\n\n13.12.2805<\/pre>\n
. The explanation offered  AD, is”\n<\/p>\n
matter was entmsted initially   Poiiee<\/p>\n
inspector and he submitfeda  “f\u00a7here\u00e9i’tier’ t.he matter<\/p>\n
was entrusted to one  he also submitted ‘<\/p>\n
‘his report and; it’    Shankar was<\/p>\n
entrusted to   thereafter again it was
\nentrustefzlfev  an\u00e9ldihen to one Sri.V.P.M.Swamy
\nand thenvt-“:’aft”e;* to  It is not in dispute that,<\/p>\n
so far, no Ie.pe1\u20ac’has’v.been’enbmitted by the o\ufb02icer subsequently<\/p>\n
 ‘  theV”i::r<s.ee\ufb01gation by the A.[).G.P.<\/p>\n
     procedure is eontemplate\u00e9 under the<\/p>\n
Z  _ pron*ieio1:\u00a73  Act. Section 17 prohibits any investigation by
\n Voi\ufb01eeziether than the o\ufb02ieers speci\ufb01ed therein. Insofar as
\n   is concerned, a crime was registered for an o\ufb01enee
\n _p1\u00a7nishab1e under Section 13(1) clause (e) of the Act i.e.,<\/p>\n
 dispropor\u00e9ienate assets to the Itnnwn source of income, and in<\/p>\n
case of investigation of crime \ufb01led under Section 13(1)[e). the<\/p>\n
second proviso ta Section 17 requires a Police Officer not beiow<\/p>\n
I',<\/p>\n
_, rggw'<\/p>\n
-1<\/p>\n
-3-<\/span>
\nthe rank of Superintendent of Police. Looking at the order
\npasseei by the A.I).G.P. dated 19.3.1994, it does not specify as to
\nWhy an inspector of Police has been entrusted with the<\/p>\n
investigation in respect of a crime punishable under<\/p>\n
13(1) clause (e) mad with Section 13(2) of the  to <\/p>\n
statute requires that the investigation;sh.ot1ld bettdtozig   Po’Li\u00a7t:e” K <\/p>\n
O\ufb01icer not below the rank of Supe\ufb01tgteedetit Ao\u00bbf_’Po}I:ice.u <\/p>\n
no reason to entrust the mves\ufb01ga\ufb01on  Eotiee. VN ‘<\/p>\n
doubt, in case the autistoxity   _i oVIee\ufb01ga\ufb01on is
\nreqllired to be done by   can do so only by
\ngiving speci\ufb01c reasons.  by the A.D.(}.P.
\nproduced in  any reason Why
\nthe matte: is.   of Police for investigation
\nin respect of ”  ‘t V<\/p>\n
  per\ufb01nent to note that, even in this<\/p>\n
 – though an a\ufb02saavit is \ufb02ied, there is no<\/p>\n
jus\ufb01\ufb01ah “eie  to Why an investigation was kept pen\u00e9ing<\/p>\n
  ‘\u00a3003 i.e., neariy 9 years. No doubt, them is no<\/p>\n
 Vt V:4″‘.:I’i.tI{*1’\u00ab[g.;1’\u00a3’_i\u00a7&)IiVVVf0r \ufb01ling the charge sheet, however, it does not mean
\n  charge sheet eoulci be \ufb01led at any length of time i.e.,
\nT  lapse of nearly 9 years and particulariy in respect of the<\/p>\n
u V Cfiiil\ufb01 under Sec\ufb01on 13(1)(e) of the Act relating to assets<\/p>\n
,9-\n<\/p>\n
dispmpertionate to the known sources of inccme of dezlinquent<\/p>\n
o\ufb01cial.\n<\/p>\n
11. It is also per\ufb01nent to mots than tixcsuuighl.<\/p>\n
inspector, who was now entrmstsd; ~1;bf: is ‘IV1(i,;tit’ 1 <\/p>\n
authoxtised to investigatt under Sccfion that<\/p>\n
he has investigated the he has  <\/p>\n
interczlia stating that, there is   twiagainst the
\npetitioner and ther:::aftsix\\~–\u00a7.\u00a3;_}c0fif1\u00a7.::;g” a\ufb01davit filed by the
\nA.D.G.P., the mafia};  and
\nSri.  that. %ere is no
\nmaterial fig  and thee’: is accepted
\nby the:    is not known, under What
\naumorityi  ” direct the other officer to<\/p>\n
invasfigate th\u00e9: matttir  Iweispect of the very crime against which<\/p>\n
 i\ufb01\ufb01e\u00e9iigaibn wasimiixade and regort was submitted. In the<\/p>\n
iinennial  even if any investigation is made by a<\/p>\n
Poke; Ovf_1’\u00a7\\eei_i:’\u00a3’jIii~charge of the Police Station, he submits a report<\/p>\n
  “\u00bb:1:;1der Sszgftion 173c3f C13”. RC, to the iurisdictional Magistrate and
\n  T”‘\u00abiiAAi”$*,{:ici::f;’n1isdi<:t:i.ona} Magistrate is not satis\ufb01ed with the regsort, he
\n  .\u00bbV11_:f.\u00a7a:s; direct furtlizxer investigation, ii; is done at the instance of the<\/p>\n
 Court, but there is no provision under the Code Gf Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure 01' under the Act, aufhorising the higher authority in<\/p>\n
dimct re~;\u20ac3:1vestigati03:1 oniy on the ground that he is not sanls\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
with the report. Learned Counsel for Lokayuktha relied” on the
\npm-visions of Sections 36 and 168 of Cr.P.Cl.  36
\nempowexs the Police O\ufb01eer superior in rank to
\ncharge of a police station may exercise
\nthmughout the local azee to which they
\nexercised by such of\ufb01cer W:\u00a3ti1i11.j.\u00a7}1e  of
\npmvision does not Ielate to  e-1″ -. ‘1\u00abfVe–‘ii1v<.e,;;'\u00e9j-itiighation oer
\nauthoxising some other  matter. it
\nonly empowers the  of the o\ufb02icer in\u00bb
\ncharge of a  23\u00a2  matter, as if he is
\ninvestigatirzgh' police station within the
\nlimits   Section 168 of Cr.P.(3.\n<\/p>\n
 to the o\ufb01eer imcharge of the<\/p>\n
Poiice _Stai:ioii~\u00bb  sulineit  ‘so the police o\ufb01cer inwclaarge of<\/p>\n
 ~_the  t\u00e9tatiozze “S-ec:’iio11 168 Cz*.P.C. is in consonance with<\/p>\n
  : pmfzie;ie\u00a7ie.: of. Section 177 wherein the \ufb01nal investigation<\/p>\n
has ‘1;V).eVs11b:1::itted by the Police Gf\ufb01cer in-charge of the<\/p>\n
‘,.Poliee siae\u00e9\ufb01. it is in this context. Section 168 Iequires the<\/p>\n
V’  sebor\ufb02inate to the o\ufb01cer in-charge of the Police Station<\/p>\n
‘   eebmit a report to the o\ufb02ieer :in–charge of the said Felice<\/p>\n
” “S\u00a7atie11 and it does not confer power an any other o\ufb01cer to issue<\/p>\n
dixeetiozx to re-\u00abinvestigate the matter.
\nrggef-.6<\/p>\n
– 11 –\n<\/p>\n
12. These proceedings being under special enactzaent and
\ngoverned by the provisions of the Act, this Act requixes even<\/p>\n
before the investiga\ufb01on is made, a permission ,1?<\/p>\n
of the Act and it mandates that a   <\/p>\n
investigate and if that provision  ‘thvat_inVee\ufb01gati:d\ufb01wf\u00a2\u00a2:\u00abbe3 <\/p>\n
done by a partzieuiar of\ufb01cer, them i::s4’v.1A1e–1easo.1p’1_”_ief
\nthe requirement of law.    tee
\nrequirement of iaw unles3v_’there”‘is’*. po\ufb02\ufb01fevr’ veeted in hitn.
\nApart from this, when  been submitted
\neven to the  there is 110 material<\/p>\n
to proceed aga{:”~;s1f\u00a7:he and it is also oon\ufb01nned.<\/p>\n
by further   e\ufb01i\u00e9er’  is accepted by the
\nSupe\ufb01nmndeet    report having been \ufb01led
\n\ufb01em 1994    it is unnecessary to keep this
\nn:\u00a7.a”‘c\u00a3e;f  eyen.’  noticed many lapses in the<\/p>\n
Acees.r\u00e9i3:_1.g1j,*’_,:’ the Criminal Petition is allowed. The<\/p>\n
”  i31…Ai;.A.C.Cr.No.3E”>\/1994 on the \ufb01le of the City Civil<\/p>\n
   Judge, Special Court, Bangalore are quashed.<\/p>\n
3\/…\n<\/p>\n
In\u00e9qe<\/p>\n
KNMj~<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 2009 Author: Subhash B.Adi -;- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25% DAY OF MAY 2009 BEFORE Q THE HN’13LE MR.JUS’}’ICE SUBHASH..B . ADI Ifjj % cmmzmu. PETITION ” BETWEEN: A’ %% ” S. […]<\/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-69262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 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\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-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=\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-14T17:35:18+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\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-14T17:35:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1020,\"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\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-14T17:35:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 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":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 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\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-14T17:35:18+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\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-14T17:35:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009"},"wordCount":1020,"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\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009","name":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of ... on 25 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-14T17:35:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivappa-bharamappa-sanner-vs-the-police-inspector-bureau-of-on-25-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sivappa Bharamappa Sanner vs The Police Inspector Bureau Of … on 25 May, 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\/69262","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=69262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}