'This can only be explained as deliberate misreporting on the part of the concerned prison officials to escape falling within the prohibition of Rule 601 of the Karnataka Prison Manual 1978. In other words, it is a case of falsification of records, the report noted. The karnataka prisons act, 1963 (in short, 'the prisons act') and the. Health act in view of the karnataka prison manual, 1978 and the karnataka prison rules,.

Decided on: Sep-21-2007 Reported in: AIR2008SC377; 2008(1)KarLJ291; 2007(11)SCALE344; (2007)8SCC145; 2007AIRSCW7056; 2008(1)AIRKarR85. Of the stamp investigation team (for short 'stampit'), crime no. 1100/2002 was registered at madiwala police station, bangalore, on 16.

10.2002 for offences punishable under section 120b, 255 to 258, 260 and 420 ipc read with section 63b of karnataka stamp act 1957 against the said a.k. Telgi and others. In pursuance of the directions issued by this court on 15.3. Platinum erwin erx 35 download youtube. Superintendent of central prison, bangalore) were impleaded as accused nos.

32 and 33 under supplementary charge-sheet filed in crime no. 1100/2002 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 and sections 3, 4 and 25 of karnataka control of organized crimes act, 2000 ('kcoc act' for short). Said nanjappa had conspired with a.

Telgi and in violation of the prison rules. Was alleged that when abdul karim telgi was arrested on 7.11.2001 and lodged in the said prison as an under-trial prisoner, the appellant and the. Decided on: Apr-09-2014. Of the prisons act deals with regard to temporary release of prisoners and the penalty in the event of failure to surrender to. To the steps taken as against the prisoners, who failed to surrender after the completion of the parole period and he has no objection for issuing appropriate directions. The karnataka prisons act, 1963 (in short, 'the prisons act') and the karnataka prisons rules, 1974 (in short, 'the prisons rules), governs the release of prisoners on parole.

More particularly sections 55 to 58 of the chapter xii. Criminal proceeding before a court, is released, it is the duty of the superintendent of the concerned jail to inform the concerned court as to release of the prisoner on parole. In view of the above, we deem it necessary to issue the following directions: i. That the state government in home department shall take immediate steps to. Arrest all those prisoners, who have failed to surrender to jail in spite of expiry of the parole period; ii. That to examine the dereliction of duty of the concerned. Decided on: Apr-17-2007 Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ82; 2007(5)SCALE730; (2007)4SCC350; 2007AIRSCW6287(2007)2SCC(Cri)300; 2007LawHerald(SC)1249.

Prison

2002 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988 and sections 3, 4 and 25 of karnataka control of organized crimes act, 2000 ('kcoc act' for short). It was alleged that the appellant was working as the assistant superintendent of central prison, parrappana agrahara, bangalore with effect from 09.8. Conspires or abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organized crime or any act preparatory to organized crime shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to life, but not less than five years. Section 4 of kcoc act provides for a punishment ranging from 3 to 10 years for possessing unaccounted wealth on behalf of a member of organized crime. For offences punishable under section 7 or 12 of the prevention of corruption act, the punishment is imprisonment for a term not less than six. 'stampit') and on the basis of its report, crime no. 1100/2002 was registered at madiwala police station, bangalore, on 16.

10.2002 for offences punishable under section 120b, 255 to 258, 260 and 420 ipc read with section 63b of karnataka stamp act 1957 against the said abdul karim telgi and others.3. After further investigation, p.n. Jayasimha, senior superintendent of central.

Arthamulla hindu matham pdf. Decided on: Nov-08-1994 Reported in: ILR1995KAR135; 1994(5)KarLJ454. 1n those cases the charges were levelled against the petitioner were in his personal capacity and no case has been made out.20. Section 42( 10) of the karnataka municipalities act 1964 reads as follows:'every president and vice president shall (***) be removable from his office as such president or vice president. Have held that no case is made out against the petitioner it would not be necessary to deal with the constitutional validity of section 42( 10) of the karnataka municipalities act, 1964 and various other contentions and case laws laid before the court both by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. There appears to be no basis for charges nos 3 and 4 for proceeding against the petitioner under section 42( 10) of the karnataka municipalities act, 1964.charge no.