Dismissed

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2020WP/11431/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, by video conference application, considered a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under the Karnataka Excise Act. The Court held that it was not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to seek discharge before the Magistrate.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

W.P. NO.11431 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.11431 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. JOEL PEETHAM D'SOUZA S/O LATE ANTHONY D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NEAR SHIRVA MASJID SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-574116 ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.RAJESH SHETTIGARA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA EXCISE DEPARTMENT UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI IN C.C.NO.355/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11, 14, 15, 32(1) AND 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965 AND ETC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P. NO.11431 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.355/2018 pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶20

The prosecution is initiated against the petitioner for violation of the Karnataka Excise Act and as such, the complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. On the registration of the complaint, investigation being carried out, a charge sheet has been laid as against the petitioner wherein there are various allegations made against the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court contending that the provision of Section 54 of Karnataka

¶22

W.P. NO.11431 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

Excise Act has not been followed. The liquor which has been seized is not in excess but within permissible limit. Therefore, the complaint against the petitioner is required to be quashed.

¶25

Having considered the submission and averments made by Sri.Rajesh Shettigar, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the contents of the petition, the complaint and the charge sheet, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner could always approach the concerned Magistrate seeking for discharge by controverting the disputed facts. Reserving such liberty, the petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

Prs*

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Deepika Vs State by S H O Manipal P S

T.V. Mohan Vs International Shiradi Sai Foundation

Sri N L Narasimhaiah Vs Sri Venkatarayappa

B a Harish Gowda Vs Ravi Kumar

Ravi Muniyappa @ Ravi M @ Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Mr Sumit Agarwal Vs State of Karnataka