Revision petition filed to set aside an order confirming the appeal against an order confiscating a Mahindra Jeep. The State sought to challenge the appellate reasons. The High Court found no warrant to interfere and rejected the petition.
Petition rejected; order dated 3.3.2012 confirming the confidential order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.654 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
State by Sub-Inspector of Excise, Puttur Rural Police Station, Puttur.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri. K.R.Keshava Murthy, State Public Prosecutor 1)
AND:
P. Koragappa Shetty, Aged 45 years, Son of Ishwara Shetty, Residing at Parathimaru House, Patrame Village and Post, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 214.
…RESPONDENT
(By Shri. R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying
2
to set aside the order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No.113/2010, to confirm the order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore in No.SDK/90/DTCR/2007-08 I so far as it relates to the confiscation of Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KA12 N 8877.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned State Public Prosecutor.
passed in appeal against an order of confiscation. The appeal
has been allowed after assigning reasons and pointing out various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the order of confiscation.
Though the learned State Public Prosecutor would vehemently seek to justify the original order and would contend that the Appellate Court was in error, having regard to the
3
detailed reasons assigned and the findings thereof, there is no
warrant to interfere. The petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
KS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to set aside the appellate order which allowed the appeal against the order of confiscation of a vehicle.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State by Sub-Inspector of Excise, Puttur Rural Police Station, Puttur
P. Koragappa Shetty
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
