✦ High Court of India · 14 Jan 2011

High Court · 2011

Case Details High Court of India · 14 Jan 2011
Court
High Court of India
Decided
14 Jan 2011
Bench
Not available
Length
3,037 words

i ied iN FIR ;i I s :bmtt ‘I fir ow 11 PW. In Sb tnk.,r h3sapn ‘iathpd i. tht P.S I a Iii P S 1 r; r odu tmplathint appnrecl and Ltd’ t a oral titerncnt NJ tiff’ san.e ec % 1 tt’1 I i 1111(1 tI — Z nsii IIr((ItI1 I liii• %‘Uflt Wets SCI I I ‘11CC’ UI j LII Clint ) Ink \ln,s IC I ci’) ) (1 1 it.itii .ljeflnflhlt) ‘nt ‘1% * I r ‘xl ,..,I I.e Ie ca - Ktisiui i ‘ :a’ . ‘ t d I 111 .3 l’it . J ‘t 1k ‘‘j’ct ict I ‘ ii’. 37 .‘ I ( I I ‘ 1’ 1• it. it.! , I..,’. c ,, It . 1 . - s t LW i)1M11J IC \I3u% ACt q* Iii iliti STrIP cliii U. lit .ii’c % itt th %1 I N i/S 25 and 97 ol 1h F S I t i... 1(1- 16 Ph 1” Li. Sidtiaruiiai iii is lii’ Asat liii’ br ‘f RI. I.. D1iai1agrrc [It’ has st’flt’ I in l is ‘ndtr she t h crifltd i-u ‘F’ \ I b i ItT md u-f It Nc .2 un1eneat -uicl he has issued F.S.L. i-c pon.

7. P .1 .1 l).’i Ida’ PicIa cmlkru Iii” p inchi witnc ‘s to’ sei/urc’ of appart 1’ lo’rnd or iii d id bnd uf I c k cea ;ed an’ he. lu, i a aed Iicn$ le. 1’ 1’i 2’)KI Hoiita,”c siI’ l( . H its U Ii g h’t £ “s Yl id _.2 z xi ‘ “H’ Ij’ i’taIi’ 1i•’i a; r iii r ‘id in a’ A 1 I ‘1 1 I ( I t fl I C (1 3’tt( fl .p ft ,j nt .ie’ use N i .1. Ii ‘ he. Ia I t •it. I Stc It! i ii )I WE tNt (I INOCI St ‘ii Ii 4I (I c’(i iP a s r ‘1 till VU’ cliii JctiiOfl% j)t Pi0t uta’;a 2 C tat I. ‘Ii vin th eie n 1?vre1 r A e ,iflfl als’) rc,nsicic ring liii Potrnrfl etrnniaiion repon wht’reiii it is linliCcatni that cit ath i caused clue to i upture c n xc.sehcrnrhgcadshc’ktIc cc t lrc’)un’t*tl In i tijrtb’-rn.a it ‘in ti!r :i it hhMd r1’t’ dUd trm” p’sclt-r •1’t dtposLLelI Iii nnu -arotinil the UoufltL. hn,i1t r’—iving ‘n t’ lcfi I j poeQi., i• i Lb t 1cisi th ln’a ii c’’lr cc ,fltlk a j)l’:.i41e1)I.’ Iflj?f 1 ‘W( tJ M2 •w S. ri.p .4 i I •11.. i j JI Ij;(jt tisiti .) ‘. ) It r I I 21 \nu’—.d N.n,.2 €tid 3 lan pieltrn’il c:ininii 1 te tr 01111 li (ui M’ nlirnccthc C I 1 c1 Iii - 1(L’’1t)I11lb1t1t1S(t1I2 J %(( of lndiu’ T’ciial C nl 22 Ft t lint nwrir cr1 In Ihe %ame’ :triiisc’cl Nio. I has pzefc rrecl ilus a’rim1ra1 appral ritailtuging lht’ j’idgemt ut of on Ac IC 1. 3 ‘€1 1’ 111 y 1( j’ ri 1iW1 1 1%W II 1%tl lt idlit I 1i tt Ptbli Fre (1t1;t ‘r elc stn’ 11(1 t liii’ De1Ut I t).q. rtCi ris 2_I It I 1fl’li 1’ iP. (i’ III’ i at’ ci •t’in it j fur ii. 1 i’l .Ii si • a _ •‘j’t.’l .1 Va I, ‘‘1 IC’a i . ik i.1 *c I \1 ‘i Ct I ‘ii II I C 1 ii c I ,,c ilL I ( I KU C) C • InC I 0 II ‘4 flY ppt lii it P S ‘ C It rid b ‘nc’fit g It irbi tc A ‘a med .1 IS ‘1 he It 4.u iw’I addit tonal j)ubdc pnnt-c ‘It. r %Llpport’ th’ I111pt113)t ii jiultenirtit C’ ‘1 nt 11011 He kurt r lIbInhI% that the evident e of cveWiIiit”es iippoits it e atse ol tin prosec tirton. Lie furthr.r suhrn!ts thu! there are no Ltruund made run in ihi’— rase to ‘n’erIne w’h the jiir5er’iei. ad “twit 11011 e6 Ve Ii ‘v re1u’I x u’t I U t id’r iicttlii1 - LI It%’ ‘ ‘ P’,i 1 l() I I ) )tlL 1 1 j4 ( C i. r . I\’ C 1-’ 11 9’1 - 1) - •p 1

1. 1( i-f a 1 I I 11111 )I( It I 1 1) C • C .11. - ‘C -in.t I I II I b • ‘ I t • ) • I Irir e tiI€fl Kr111na Ttiiliou ukd dii o iniu1K utfr1td tII( arm’ hit’ • tdeiicv Lii (V Wit it ‘, t% \ Ii 1’ i P 13 1 t nrcl gte 1 Itli Hi ) I ii C lie; I )h’i( 2’’ It Ii e ‘ntcnti ‘n ‘I tig 1arn.t1 •‘.uin1 f”i th( appelhirn tha’ l’R 1 \ i d’s ‘i .i i i d (if P I ctflC flV 3 Jfe iuithe1 c.ul,nui that TS .2 1’ an x I erich’ fi ‘nine 5% and lws turned hostile be%ides tic eisr ill ‘ill— i’r t n It isci mid is tli” concni’cii of iii’ learucel s oun,eI fin- ai ( llaat that. mdc. pc iden Wit ‘ii: %• -1 S LW’ t .1 1 iti1t )Lt 1W ‘c. ip. i iii r I fl 1(414 $1,(’(I . th’i uric uce ilu 1 .1 ‘ii i I ‘I a’ c il)cl ii;” 1’ir “ Ii utch itt I” i’ll ,L( ted I ti-c i ( I I ‘de. i s (•. d ‘ ‘i • I ‘ t I — 1 1 — • 1, 1 C— 1) q .1 1v ic “fir’ I ; C_itt’ II •j •.‘j 34f III • Li i L i i i • .‘ p 1) ‘‘ Iji 1, , ,. ,I- . ) ‘I. .‘t 1,?I ‘I Ik’ii 1;’ is fl (ii ii o In Ii We St t SC in I n. hurt el uii 2!i ii (jt9C) .11)11 A. I V.i% nppieht nile d (in IX fl7 2’’04 ir tlb’i live cir horn ilit cktt of ifleiclrtit. p1 ( iii tig&t 4th ick c 13 Ii Seta i )f in nnniaIing weap(Jn% tn&r a I-’cuiehanarnu 1% 10 iIW nature of corroborative pien of ei idnict, bi’’ in thi ra lix. ‘vidc. )f es a ness . ‘as e I T’i.to! whirl’ s a £ nrroInri1ive pit — il evithtner will not go 10 tilt. Toni oh ti (‘ pl(iS(tLtiflH ea”.c in our view. r’ idcnee .4 ‘ PW 4’4 M 1 Off t Pc (41. ‘h 11a11_I 1 i (I:’ ( it .4)1(1 £‘‘(‘ LII iTt i 1’’ ‘ • j ‘. . : ‘:. . t ‘ 1’ a. Iii’ : ‘j;_ j4b ( %.( •J . .1 ‘i ‘ Iii J p. ) 1 1 c ‘ I If tIJUKO

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments