Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 266 (KAR)

Lakshmidevamma v. Government of Karnataka

2010-03-02

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2010
Judgment : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the charge-sheet is filed by the 4th respondent-Police in Crime No. 160 of 2006, the experts’s opinion relating finger prints, thumb impression, signatures etc., are not collected by the police as of this day and consequently, the investigation cannot be said to be fully completed. This, a direction is sought for against respondent 4 to complete the necessary investigation by getting the scientific opinion on the aforementioned subjects. 2. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the report from the laboratory is yet to be secured and immediately after securing such a report, the same will be placed before the concerned Court. 3. The records reveal that the petitioner has lodged the complaint before the 4th respondent-Police against one Basappa and others alleging offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 165, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the petitioner, the accused have created the sale deed in respect of the property of the petitioner and her children. It is further alleged that some other persons have appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli and have signed the document as if the said persons are the petitioner and her children. In view of the allegations, it is just and necessary to obtain scientific opinion in respect of finger prints, signatures, thumb impressions, etc. The complaint is lodged as back as in the year 2006. Already four years have elapsed. It is unfortunate that the State Government is unable to gather the required material to proceed against the accused, Under such circumstances, necessary direction has to be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, the following order is made. The respondents 2 and 4 are directed to obtain scientific opinion from 3rd respondent-Karnataka State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the order. The 3rd respondent is directed to furnish the opinion on merits within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is allowed accordingly.