Karnataka Court February 2012 Judgments
Sakamma H.M. Do. Late Malleningappa H.S. and ors. Vs. Karhataka Power ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS, J.1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to strike down the notification dated 17.8.2010 Annexure L amending the Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment & Promotion Regulations, Employees [Probation] Regulations and Employees [Seniority] Regulations in so far as it relates to the recruitment and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman; to quash the notification dated 12.12.2011, Annexure-M inviting applications for the post of Assistant Lineman and for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply for the post of Assistant Lineman.2. The erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board was entrusted with the job of the electrical power transmission and distribution. Subsequently, this Karnataka Electricity Board was renamed as 'Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited1 i.e., the respondent herein. The respondent established an Industrial Training Centre to impart training for b...
Tag this Judgment!K.M Thimmaiah So MuddappA. Vs. the Station House Officer Ponnampet Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioner is accused No .3 has Crime No.160/ 2011 registered by Ponnampet police Madikeri for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 379 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 62, 71(A), 144, 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 127(A) and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 8, 15 and 19 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976.2. Though the matter is under investigation, however, it is brought to ray notice that accused No.1 has been granted anticipatory bail in CrLP.No.6915/2011 dated 29.12.2011 and similarly, accused NOB.2 and 4 have also been granted anticipatory bail in CrLP.No.6828/ 2011 dated 9.1.2012.3. Having regard to the same, I find that tins petitioner could also be granted anticipatory bail.4. Accordingly, petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by Ponnampet Police, Madikeri in Crime No.160/2011, the Police shall interrogate him and after interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadraiah Son of Kalaiah. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. Appeal against forfeiture of bonds executed by them and imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- each by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Bangalore, in Crl. Misc. 4782/09 by his order dated 5.12.2011.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal.3. From the case papers, it is seen 5th accused-R. Johny @ Anandakumar was granted bail by this court in Crl.P.3932/08 on the condition he should execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to release him on bail in S.C.381/08 arising out of Crime NO.424/07. After his release, 5th accused failed to appear during trial, consequent to which his presence could not be secured even by the police.4. Appellants had stood surety for him undertaking to comply with the conditions imposed by this court in Crl.P.3932/08 and had executed bond for Rs.50,000/-each. Since 5th accused-R.Johny @ Anandakumar failed to appear, cause notice was issued to them and though they did...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi, Son of Late Dasarathasetty. Vs. the State by Nazarbad Police Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioner is accused No.2, He has been charge sheeted in Crime No 231/2011 registered by Nazarbad read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. The deceased is the wife of X accused. The police Mysore city- for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 302 read with 34 of IPC flutter allegation is that accused No.1 had collected dowry at the time of marriage was also demanding further down/ and in this regard, die accused were harassing the tat deceased and on 30.8.2011, they committed murder of the deceased by pouring kerosene and litting fire on her.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of accused No.1. He is not residing with accused No.1. He is residing in the first floor and the incident took place in the ground floor and immediately after the incident, the petitioner rushed the injured to the hospital.4. Since the investigation as complete, charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner has been in ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt, Puttamma at Cheeti Puttamma and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka .
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.49/2010 registered by Saligrama police, Mysore District for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 read with 3 49 of IPC further read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961.2. The complainant is the daughter- in - Law of 1st petitioner she has filed a complaint inter alia alleging that these accused have harassed her in connection with dowry. However, it is submitted that the husband of the complainant died IV years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complainant has Left the house of her husband and she has also filed a partition suit.3. No doubt, considering the circumstances, petitioners could be granted boil, however, it appears that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail earlier and they have violated the conditions. As such, I find that the petitioners could be directed to surrender themselves before the learned Magistrate and if they surrender and seek regular hail, same may be considered by t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Sri. H.D.RevannA. Son of Sri H D D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
NAGAKATIINA J,1. The State has assailed the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.9923-9932/2011 and connected writ petitions.2. The Karnataka Milk Federation (hereinafter referred to as "the Federation", for the sake of brevity) is the federal co-operative institution established for the benefit of the milk producers as well as the consumers. The first respondent herein was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federation for the years 1995 to July 2009, He was thereafter elected as a Director of the Federation. He along with other directors sought quashing of the reports submitted by the Deputy Director of the Co-operative Audit (Audit Division) and also the orders of the Director of Co-operative Audit as well the resolution of the Federation for the implementation of the directions contained in the order. In the writ petition, interim stay of the execution and operation of the orders at Annexure M2 dated 20.01.2011 and all further procee...
Tag this Judgment!Jayabalu Son of Ahdavan and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.354/2010. These accused ware arrested in another case and they were in custody. However, the police took the body warrant on 11.8.2011. Petitioners filed an application for enlarging on bail on 15.10.2011 under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The charge sheet should have been filed within sixty days but, even till the disposal of the bail petition, no charge sheet has been filed. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, on the default clause, the petitioners are entitled for bail. He also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2009(1) KCCR 257 in the case of VIJAY KUMAR @ KAVLA AND ORS, vs. STATE BY ANEKAL POLICE' and in similar circumstances, that Court has granted hail in CrLP.No.48/ 2012.2. Having regard to the same I find that tbs. petitioners could be enlarged on bail3. According, petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bon...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razak Son of Ibrahim and ors. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.4/2012 registered by Karkala Rural police, Udupi District for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 read with 34 of IPC further read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. The complainant is the wife of 1st accused. Marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 was held on 18.9.2011. However, within three months, she has Sled a private complaint on 20.12.2011 inter-alia alleging that these accused have harassed her in connection with the dowry.3. In so far as accused Nos,2 and 3 are concerned who are the father and mother of accused No, 1. I find that they could be granted anticipatory bail. However, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of accused No.1.4. Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. In the event of arrest of petitioner Nos,2 and 3 by Karkala Rural Police, Udupi District in Crime No.4/ 2012, the Police shall interrogate them and after interrogation, the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!State of KarnatakA. Vs. Sri J M Rajanna Son of Late MunlswamappA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The State is in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for offences punishable under Section 448, 505 of IPC and Section 3(l)(x) of SC/ST (Prohibition of Atrocities Act), 1989.2. Heard the learned HCGP Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat appearing for the State arid Sri. V.D. Ganiger, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.3. The prosecution case is on 15.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m., the respondent/accused illegally commenced construction of the compound wall without leaving any space for movement of the complainant to his house. Complainant-Muniraju approached and respondent and asked him why he was putting up the compound wall which may obstruct pathway to come to his (complainant) house. The accused did not like the complainant Muniraju interfering with the said work and became infuriated. The accused abused him referring to his acts as and also assaulted him. It is stated that he did so with deliberate intention of committing atrocity since he belonged to SC/ST commu...
Tag this Judgment!Lokesh, Son of Sri. ShivalingegowdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-2012
1. The petitioner in Accused No.1. He has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable U/s.302, 201 r/w Sec 34 of IPC.2. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence.3. Considering that, Accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail and also considering the judicial custody of the petitioner, petitioner m enlarged on bail.4. Accordingly, the petition m allowed. The petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent, sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.ii) He shall regularly attend the Court on all hearing dates.iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or the material evidence....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »