Dismissed

H E Rohit Kumar S/O Late Dodda Yariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2019CRL.P/100227/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings registered for violating a liquor closure order. Court rejected double jeopardy plea, holding suspension of licence and criminal prosecution addressed distinct offences and circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed; no quashing order granted.

H E Rohit Kumar S/O Late Dodda Yariyappa Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100227 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

H. E. ROHIT KUMAR, S/O LATE DODDA YARIYAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HOLALU, PLOT NO.107, WARD NO.2, MAILAR ROAD, HOLALU VILLAGE, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PIDCIB UNIT DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, HIREHADAGALI P.S., REP. BY ADDL. SPP, AG’s OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.15/2018 REGISTERED WITH HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC H.B.

¶13

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

HALLI I/C HUVINAHADAGALI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AND SECTION 188 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION SO FOR PETITIONER CONCERNED.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed by the

¶19

petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in Crime No.15/2018 of Hirehadagali Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶21

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that the

¶24

District Magistrate, Ballari, by exercising power under Section 21 of the Act, passed an order dated 29.01.2018, and as there was a festival, he directed to close-down all the liquor shops in Hadagali Taluk for a period of five days from 6.00 a.m. of 01.02.2018 to 6.00 a.m. of 05.02.2018. Subsequently, the

¶25

petitioner/accused by violating the said order was selling the illicit liquor and as such, the present case has been registered.

¶26

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶27

for the petitioner/accused that there was a prohibitory order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, thereafter it is the contention of the complaint that the petitioner had violated the said order by keeping open the shop and was selling the liquor, for which he was issued with a show-cause notice, to which an appropriate reply was given; thereafter the Deputy Commissioner has passed

¶28

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

an order dated 09.02.2018 suspending the licence for ten days. However, now, the Deputy Commissioner has registered a case in Crime No.15/2018 under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act and Section 188 of the IPC; the initiation of said proceedings is nothing but violation of principles of double jeopardy; when once the Deputy Commissioner suspended the licence for ten days vide order dated 09.02.2018, now on the same set of facts no second proceedings can be initiated as against the petitioner/accused No.4 and thereby there is violation of principles of natural justice and is nothing but abuse of process of law. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.

¶31

Per contra, the learned High Court

¶32

Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the proceedings initiated for suspension of licence is quite different from the proceedings initiated under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act and Section 188 of IPC;

¶33

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

no penalty or fine has been imposed for having committed the offence under the said Sections; the said order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.02.2018 is for violation of licence conditions and not for the offence; there are no good grounds to quash the proceedings. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶36

I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶37

There is no dispute with regard to the District Magistrate passing the order directing closure of liquor shops from 01.02.2018 to 05.02.2018. The only contention which has been made in this behalf is that it is the same offence for which the accused has been prosecuted two times. But, as could be seen from the facts and circumstances of the case and the records, and the order dated 09.02.2018, they clearly goes to show

¶38

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

that though a prohibitory order was passed by the District Magistrate directing closure of liquor shops for the above said period, the petitioner/accused No.4 had kept open the shop and was selling the liquor and, as such, steps were taken as contemplated under Section 29 of Act and the licence was suspended for ten days. The chargesheet material and the complaint disclose the fact that on 01.02.2018, the accused was selling illicit liquor to some other persons and thereby he has committed the offence under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act and under Section 188 of IPC. When there was a prohibitory order directing the licensee to close down of the liquor shops and was prohibited from selling the liquor for the above said period, and if the petitioners sells the liquor, even though he has licence, it amounts to nothing but selling the liquor without there being any licence and for the said act, a criminal case has been registered and now the investigation is in progress. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the material and other records;

¶41

Crl.P. No.100227 of 2019

¶42

: 7 :

¶43

it is not a case to apply the principles of double jeopardy. Two different offences have been committed by the accused for which he is liable to be punished in accordance with law i.e., for violating the licence conditions, he has been punished under Section 29 of the Act by suspending the licence for ten days and for the another offence under Section 32 and 34 of the Act, for which no punishment or fine has been imposed in this behalf a proceeding has been initiated. Under the said facts and circumstances, the contention which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any force. There is no merit and hence, the petition stands dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Kms

H E Rohit Kumar S/O Late Dodda Yariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H E Rohit Kumar S/O Late Dodda Yariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

State of Karnataka Vs Umesh S/O Bhupanna Mudagal

Chandrashekar S/O Mallappa Kadabagil Vs S a Torgalmath

Venkatesh @ Venki S/O Ramachandrappa Shikkalagar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Veeresh S/O. Sharabhalingappa Hullatti Vs Smt. Jyoti D/O. Gurupadappa Shiramoagond

Santosh B. Toragalmat Vs Taluk Executive Magistrate

Gergalchand Rashekaraiah Gopalakrishna Rao Vs Smt.Ankita W/O Uttam Pawaskar