The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a Sessions Judge's order that set aside confiscation of a vehicle. The Court held there was no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the lower court's decision.
The petition is dismissed; the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the confiscation is upheld.
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.
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1065/2017
BETWEEN :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE-INSPECTOR MAGADI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 … PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)
AND :
GANGADHARAPPA SON OF PUTTARADHYA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/O ARALEPETE CROSS MAGADI TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.01.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.A.NO.50/2011 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA IN
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
2
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.EXE/RNR/DTCR/217/ 2010-11 (CR.NO.8/2010).
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
“Whether the learned III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara was justified in reversing the order of the Authorized Officer confiscating the Tata Sumo vehicle KA-02-Z-3662?” is the question involved in this case.
the proceedings against the respondent in Excise FIR No.8/2010-11 alleging that on 24.12.2010 at 12:30 hours near Narasimha circle, B.K.Road, Magadi Town, his team intercepted and searched Tata Sumo KA-02-Z-3662 on the basis of credible information of illegal transportation of liquor. The vehicle was found transporting 11 boxes containing 48 bottles of Original Choice Whisky of 180 ml each without any permit or licence. It was alleged that the
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
3
liquor along with the vehicle was seized under the mahazar.
vehicle seized was released to the interim custody of the respondent with the condition that he shall furnish the Bank guarantee in a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondent challenged the said condition before the Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in Crl.A.No.13/2011 which was dismissed. Therefore, he preferred Crl.R.P.No.666/2011 before this Court which came to be allowed on 05.09.2011. The condition to furnish Bank guarantee was modified
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
4
and the respondent was directed to furnish the indemnity bond in the said sum.
confiscation of Tata Sumo vehicle KA-02-Z-3662.
search and seizure was proved. Relying on 43B(2) of the Act, the Authorized Officer raised the presumption that the respondent was in conscious possession of the liquor and failed to prove that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of the vehicle for transporting the intoxicants.
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
5
9. The learned Sessions Judge by the
impugned order set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer on the following grounds:
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
6
(i) The respondent is acquitted in
C.C.No.289/2011;
(ii) There were no materials before the Court
to show that the respondent/accused indulged in transporting the liquor in Tata Sumo or the vehicle was used for transportation of liquor.
i) The proceedings before the Magistrate in C.C.No.289/2011 and the confiscation proceedings before the Authorized Officer were two distinct and independent proceedings and acquittal of the respondent in C.C.No.289/2011 had no bearing on the proceedings under Section 43A for confiscation.
ii) In confiscation proceedings, the seizure mahazar witnesses were examined and supported the seizure of the vehicle with intoxicants.
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
7
upon the following judgments:
counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) The learned Sessions Judge has not
reversed the confiscation order on the sole ground of acquittal of the respondent in C.C.No.289/2011; and
(ii) The evidence of the alleged seizure
mahazar witnesses before the Authorized Officer was not credible.
1 2004(3) Kar. L.J. 429
2 2014(5) Kar. L.J. 96
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
8
under Section 43A of the Act for confiscation before the Authorized Officer are two distinct and
independent proceedings. But the question was whether search and seizure of the vehicle and the intoxicants was proved.
Crl.R.P.No.1065/2017
9
seizure mahazar. Considering the said evidence, the First Appellate Court held that the case before the Authorized Officer regarding the search and seizure was not credible. The First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the evidence found that the search and seizure was not proved and reversed the confiscation order.
Sd/JUDGE
KG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in reversing the order of confiscation of the vehicle?
Whether the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case had no bearing on the proceedings under Section 43A for confiscation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka and another v/s AnnayyaReferred¶55
State of Karnataka and another v/s Annayya
B.Krishnappagowda v/s Circle Inspector of PoliceReferred¶56
B.Krishnappagowda v/s Circle Inspector of Police, Koppa Police Station, Chikkamagalur District and another
5 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE-INSPECTOR MAGADI
GANGADHARAPPA
K.S.MUDAGAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
