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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 165

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H. P. Sandesh, J.
Venkatachalapathi B. S. v. State and Another


1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent / complainant before the Trial Court is that this petitioner is working as a Special Tahsildar and an application was pending before him in respect of Sy.No.56 to the extent of 1 acre 37 guntas in RRT No.55/2013-14 and when the complainant went and met the petitioner, he demanded an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to favour him and once again when he went and met to pursue the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded an amount Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs as advance. When C.W.1 requested to receive only Rs. 2 lakhs or 3 lakhs, he told him to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and that he would issue the copy of the order only on payment of balance amount. That on 18.12.2017, when the petitioner was in the office in Kandaya Bhavana, the complainant met him and requested to pass an order and told him that he has brought Rs.5 lakhs advance as agreed and at that time, the petitioner called accused No.2 and instructed him to receive the amount. Accordingly, accused No.2 took him to Kandaya Bhavana, IInd Floor in between the two toilets and told him to give the money to him and t
















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