IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.460/2016 BETWEEN 1. The State of Karnataka Through Police Sub-Inspector Police Station Chelur, Bagepalli Taluk-561207.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Excise Department of Excise Chikkaballapura-561207 Rep. by S.P.P. Bengaluru.
(By Sri. Thejesh .P, HCGP) AND Sri T V Ramakrishnaiah S/o V Venkatappa Aged about 58 years R/o Chelur Bagepalli Town-561207.
(By Smt. Sunanda Sarkar , Advocate for M/s Y R Sadashivareddy Associates) ... Petitioners ... Respondent This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in Crl.A.No.16/2014 and confirm the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the authorized officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkaballapura in DTCR No.187/2008-09 and allow this Crl.RP.
This Criminal Revision Petition Coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This revision petition is preferred by the Petitioner- State challenging the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Court below in Crl.A.No.16/2014 and to confirm the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chickballapur in DTCR No.187/2008-09.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 08.05.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. when the Sub-Inspector of Police was on patrolling duty at Sarikan Kote, he saw one person driving a vehicle in a rash manner. He stopped the said vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA 40 M 487. Immediately, the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the spot and after searching the vehicle, they found 15 boxes of Original Choice Whisky, 9 boxes of Raja Whisky and 1 box of Charmi Whisky. The Sub Inspector seized the vehicle along with liquor boxes. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.22/2008 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 43-E of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 372 of IPC and thereafter, he produced the seized vehicle and the liquor boxes before the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Chickballapur and the said Authorised Officer by an order dated 21.01.2014 ordered for confiscation of the seized vehicle.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chickaballapura the accused filed Crl.A.No.16/2014 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickballapura. In the said appeal an application under Section 451 and 457 of IPC was filed seeking release of seized vehicle. The Court below vide order dated 14.05.2015 allowed the appeal with a direction to release the seized vehicle in favour of the accused. Hence, the present revision petition is preferred by the State challenging the impugned order.
4. Learned HCGP for the State contends that the impugned order passed by the Court below is improper and opposed to facts of the case and the material evidence collected by the investigation officer. He further contends that the court below ought to have dismissed the appeal as there are material irregularities in passing the said order and releasing the seized vehicle which was illegally transporting liquors. On all these grounds, learned HCGP has sought for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the observation made in the order passed by the Court below in Crl.A.No.16/2014. Though the criminal case was initiated against the accused and also charge sheet was laid, consisting statement of witnesses and so also seizure mahazar, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the same has been observed by the Court below relating to setting aside the order of confiscation. The Court below on appreciation of material evidence available on record, has rightly set- aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chickballapura and the same does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, may be dismissed.
6. It is in this context of contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, learned HCGP stated supra, it is relevant to state that on 8.5.2008 when the Police Sub Inspector was on patrolling duty at Sarikan Kote, he noticed one person driving the vehicle in a rash manner and he stopped the said vehicle and on search of the vehicle found contra bound articles containing whisky. The said vehicle was seized along with liquor boxes by drawing the mahazar. Thereafter, a case was registered against the accused in Crime No.22/2008 under Section 43-E of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 372 of IPC. The same was produced before the Authorised Officer. The Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Chickballapura by order dated 21.1.2014 ordered for confiscation of seized vehicle. The said order came to be challenged before the Additional District and sessions Judge, Chickballapura in Crl.A.No.16/2014 whereby the accused had filed an application under Section 451 and 457 of IPC seeking release of the seized vehicle. The court below vide order dated 14.05.2015 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and ordered for release of the seized vehicle.
7. The Court below while passing the impugned order has appreciated the material evidence available on record. In the said order the court below has observed that the accused had not utilized the vehicle in question for committing the crime. Further, the said crime proceedings were held before the Court of JMFC, Bagepalli and the said Court had opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused in transporting the contra bound articles and released the accused persons. In this regard, the accused had produced a copy of the said order passed by the JMFC court, Bagepalli before the Court below. On the basis of the said order and that the prosecution having failed to prove the guilt of the accused and so also, the involvement of the vehicle in question in the crime, the Court below passed the impugned order setting aside the order of the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise at Chickballapura confiscating of seized vehicle. I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the said order for the reasons that there are no substance in the contentions urged by the learned HCGP and the same does not hold any water that calls for interference of the impugned order. The Court below has appreciated the entire evidence available on record and has passed the impugned order.
For the aforesaid reasons and findings, I am of the considered opinion that the criminal revision petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected. Consequently, the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the I Addl.District and Sessions, Chickballapura in Crl.A.No.16/2014 is confirmed.
Sd/- JUDGE DKB