SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

D.P.HIREMATH
Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa, Kalal alias Kuncharkar & 11 ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


ORDER

U.P. Hiremath, J. - Heard for admission. Admitted Heard/on merits as well.

2. The order passed by the II Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur, in C.C. No. 582/1988 on 25-11-1989 under Section 319 Cr. P.C. taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners has been challenged in this revision petition. For offences under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. a complaint was filed in the Renebennur Town Police Station against 15 persons including the present petitioners. On investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. came to be filed against 3 of the accused named in the complaint. During trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses. Soon after the first witness i.e., P.W. 1-complainant was examined in chief, the Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court that because the complainant had deposed in his evidence-in-chief against these petitioners as well, he sought for time to file application to take cognizance of the offences against them as well. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 complainant was stopped at that stage and P.W. 2 was asked to depose. This was nearly, one month, after the evidence-in-chief of P.W. 1 was over. Similar course was ado

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top