Dismissed

Thalaku Police Station v. C Nagaraja S/.O Sri Ramadasa

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2015CRL.RP/351/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order that acquitted the respondent of illicit liquor charges and set aside a vehicle confiscation order. The court held that upon acquittal, confiscation does not survive.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed. The order restoring the property to the respondent is affirmed.

Thalaku Police Station Vs C Nagaraja S/.O Sri Ramadasa — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRL.RP.No.351/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2015

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.351/2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THALAKU POLICE STATION, CHALLAKERE TALUK.

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR, EXCISE SQUAD, CHALLAKERE.

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHITRADURGA.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

C.NAGARAJA, S/O. SRI RAMADASA, NO.99, 3-432/3, RAJIV GANDHI COLONY, RAYADURGA ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.

¶16

... RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI V.G.BHANU PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶18

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W.401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.30/11/2010 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC., CHITRADURGA IN CRL.A. No.51/2010 AND RESTORE THE

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRL.RP.No.351/2012

¶21

ORDER OF CONFISCATION DT.4/6/2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CHITRADURGA IN No.EX/DTCR/113/2005-06.

¶22

THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

An order of authorized officer confiscating the

¶24

Tempo Trax bearing No.AP-02-U-7152 while it was said to have been transporting illicit liquor was challenged in the appeal by the respondent in Crl.A.No.51/2010 and vide order dated 30.11.2010, the

¶25

said appeal came to be allowed setting aside the order of confiscating with a direction to return the vehicle to the respondent herein. The said order is under challenge by the state in this revision petition.

¶26

There is a delay of 387 days in filing this revision petition.

¶27

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners on admission and also on I.A. to condone the delay.

¶28

-3-

¶29

CRL.RP.No.351/2012

¶30

Perused the impugned order passed by the

¶31

Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Challakere in C.C.No.582/2006. It reveals that the respondent was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 32(1) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act for unlawful transportation of illicit liquor in the aforesaid vehicle. The accused is acquitted for the said charges and this fact is not in dispute. When a person is prosecuted for the contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act and on the trial, he is acquitted of the said charges, the question of confiscating of the vehicle said to have been used in transporting illicit liquor does not survive for consideration. It is for this reason, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of confiscate and allowed the appeal.

¶32

5. Considering the submission made by the

¶33

learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this

¶34

CRL.RP.No.351/2012

¶35

-4-

¶36

petition. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, the revision petition is

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

The application for condonation of delay of 387 days in filing this revision petition does not survive for consideration in view of hearing this revision petition on merit. Hence, it is rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Thalaku Police Station v. C Nagaraja S/.O Sri Ramadasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thalaku Police Station v. C Nagaraja S/.O Sri Ramadasa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj S/O Raghuanth More Vs D.C.Msrtc and Ors.

Uttam S/O Nana Jagadane Vs the Managing Director

Bheemayya S/O Tippayya Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer (Mip)

Sri Yesurathna Vs Smt B S Susheelamma

E Lokesh S/O Eshwar Murthy Vs v Balasubramani

Sri Sugandha @ Sugandhe Gowda Vs S Y Sudheer Gowda