Partly allowed

Kullegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022CRL.RP/871/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition partly, acquitting the petitioner of an offence under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 due to the death of the co-accused who allegedly allowed the premises. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 32 of the Act were confirmed based on the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965; confirmation of conviction and sentence under Section 32 of the Act; direction to serve the sentence.

Kullegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.871 OF 2013

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Kullegowda S/o. Late Bojjegowda, Aged about 62 years,

¶7

Smt. B.M. Susheelamma, W/o. Kullegowda, Aged about 52 years, Both R/o. N.E.S. Extension, 4th Cross, Malavalli Town, Mandya - District, Pin Code - 571 401.

¶8

..Petitioners

¶9

(By Sri. Somashekhar Kashimath, Advocate; petition abates as against petitioner No.2 vide order dated 17-06-2022 )

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka through Excise Inspector, Malavalli Zone, Malavalli, District - Mandya Pincode - 571401.

¶12

.. Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. Rahul Rai K., High Court Govt. Pleader)

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

****

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the entire records and allow the revision petition by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.105/2012 dated 10-09-2013 and thereby confirming the order of conviction and modifying the sentence passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Malavalli in C.C.No.748/2007, dated 20-09-2012 and acquit the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity.

¶18

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Final Hearing, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The present petitioners, as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, were tried by the Court of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) in C.C.No.748/2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Excise Act”)

¶21

and were convicted for the said offences by its judgment of conviction dated 20-09-2012 and order on sentence dated 21-09-2012.

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶23

¶24

Aggrieved by the same, both the accused persons preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.105/2012.

¶25

The learned Sessions Judge’s Court in its order dated 10-09-2013 dismissed the appeal filed by both the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.748/2007. It is challenging the judgments passed

¶26

by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court, both the accused have preferred the present revision petition.

¶27

It is the summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court that, the present petitioners by converting their dwelling house which is located at N.E.S. Extension, 4th Cross, Malavalli Town, within the limits of the respondent - Police Station, was using the said dwelling house for the purpose of manufacturing illicit liquor. Based

¶28

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶30

on the credible information received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, on the date 26-09-2007, PW-1 - the Sub-Inspector of Excise (Enforcement and Investigation), Malavalli, joined by his staff and panchas conducted a raid on the house of the petitioners and noticed that, the petitioners were found in possession in their house of 144 bottles of duplicate Original Choice Whisky in a plastic bag, 96 bottles of duplicate Highway Fine Whisky in another plastic bag, 600 empty bottles of Original Choice Whisky kept in six separate bags, 2 kgs. of Original Choice Whisky corks kept in a plastic bag, 15 liters of blended spirit kept in a white Can with a capacity of 35 liters and another empty Can with a capacity of 35 liters in their house and compound. After enquiry with the inmates of the house, who were the petitioners herein, they came to know that the petitioners were involved in illegal manufacturing of illicit liquor under some printed name, as such, by drawing a panchanama as per Ex.P-2 in the presence of panchas, PW-1 seized all the

¶31

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶32

¶33

articles. During the process they separated randomly six bottles each in Original Choice Whisky and Highway Fine Whisky and one liter of the blended spirit separately and sealed them for their chemical examination. By enquiry in the spot, they also came to know that petitioner No.2, who was the wife of petitioner No.1 was the owner of the said house, who had permitted to make use of the premises for the alleged illicit activities. After returning to the office, PW-1 prepared an FIR and submitted to the Court. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 38A and 43 of the Excise Act.

¶34

In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution got examined in all five witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16(a) and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-13(c). Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as Exhibits from the side of the accused persons.

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶36

¶37

After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction dated 20-09-2012 and order on sentence dated 21-09-2012 convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 38A of the Excise Act and sentenced them accordingly.

¶38

As observed above, both the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the judgments of both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court, both the accused persons are before this Court, in the present revision petition.

¶39

The respondent - State is being represented by the

¶40

learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶41

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused persons and learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶42

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶43

¶44

the respondent/complainant are appearing physically

¶45

before the Court.

¶46

The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

¶47

During the pendency of this revision petition, the death of petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) was reported, as such, the petition of petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) was taken as abated vide order dated 17-06-2022.

¶48

Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

¶49

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶50

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is:

¶51

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶52

¶53

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, in C.C.No.748/2007, which was further confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No.105/2012, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court ?

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners in his

¶55

argument submitted that ' the record of reasons to search before warrant ’ which is at Ex.P-6 is very vague in its timings, in as much as, it mentions that the information was received ‘before 4:50 p.m.’ as such, it cannot be accepted that PW-1 had no time to secure the search warrant and that he had to rush to the spot with his report under Section 54 of the Excise Act. He further submitted that even though few hundreds of bottles said to have been containing illicit whisky were said to have been seized, however, the slips containing the signatures of the panch witnesses have not been pasted on all those bottles, except those which were segregated and kept separate for their

¶56

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶57

¶58

chemical examination. He also submitted that there is delay in sending the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Finally stating that the neighbours in the locality have not been examined by the Investigating Officer, learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgments thus suffers with some serious doubts in the case of the prosecution.

¶59

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the complainant/respondent in his brief argument submitted that, the chemical examiner’s report at Ex.P-8 mentions that the samples examined by it are the

¶60

illicit liquor. Since they are random samples, it has to be necessarily inferred that the goods seized in their entirety were all illicit liquor only. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has given proper reasoning at Ex.P-6, to conduct raid without obtaining search warrant from the learned Magistrate. Though he stated that Section 38A of the Excise Act would not be applicable, by virtue of the death of petitioner No.2 during the pendency of this

¶61

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶62

¶63

petition, still he concluded his argument stating that a presumption under Section 40 of the Excise Act operates against accused No.1, as such also, the impugned judgments cannot be found fault with.

¶64

Among the five witnesses examined by the prosecution, the main witnesses who speak about the alleged raid are, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. Among these four witnesses, PW-1 and PW-4 are Departmental witnesses, whereas PW-2 and PW-3 are independent witnesses who are said to have accompanied PW-1 and PW-4 during the raid, by agreeing to be panchas for the possible seizure panchanama, if made, during the raid. However, among these four witnesses, it is only PW-1 and PW-4 who have supported the case of the prosecution, but PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶65

PW-1 (CW-5) - Sri. B.N. Narasimhamurthy and PW-4 (CW-3) - Sri. Nagabhushana S., in their evidence

¶66

¶67

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶68

have uniformly stated that on the date 26-09-2007, while they were on patrolling duty as the Sub Inspector of Excise and Excise Guard respectively, based upon a credible information, requested two panchas who were found in that place to join them as panchas in a raid and in their Departmental vehicle, they went to the house of the accused located in 4th cross of N.E.S. Extension of Malavalli Town. When they called for the inmates of the house, it was accused No.1, who came out and on enquiry, he identified himself as Kullegowda (accused No.1). Informing about their identity and the purpose of their visit, they (the raiding team) entered their house, where they noticed that in the central hall of the house, two plastic bags tied with a thread were kept. They also noticed two plastic Cans each with 35 liter capacity. After opening the bag, they noticed that it was containing bottles filled with liquor. Among two Cans, one was containing 15 liters of blended whisky and another one was empty, but it was smelling of liquor. When counted, they noticed that there were 144

¶69

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶70

¶71

bottles in the plastic bag, each with a capacity of 180 ml. It was shown as Original Choice Whisky. In the second bag, they noticed 96 bottles of Highway Fine Whisky, each with 180 ml. capacity. When they went to the backyard of the house, they noticed that there were six bags, each containing 100 empty bottles of 180 ml. capacity each. In one such plastic bag, they noticed the Corks with the printed label on them as Original Choice Whisky. They summoned the Photographer and got the photographs of all those articles taken. Both these witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) have also stated that from out of these goods, they randomly picked out six bottles of Original Choice Whisky, each with 180 ml. capacity and six bottles of Highway Fine Whisky and from out of the 15 liters of blended whisky, they collected one liter as sample. For sending all these sample articles for their chemical examination, they got the slips pasted on them duly signed by the panchas. In that regard, a seal was also put on those sample articles. Stating so, all these witnesses have identified the said

¶72

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶73

¶74

sample seal at Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama at Ex.P-2 and the alleged seized articles at MO-1 to MO-13. They have also identified their signatures on those labels pasted upon MO-1 to MO-13.

¶75

Both of these witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) have further stated that they also noticed the presence of accused No.2 in the house and when enquired, they came to know her name as Smt. B.M. Susheelamma, Wife of Kullegowda and that the said property belonged to her.

¶76

PW-1 further stated that, after returning to the office, he prepared an FIR and submitted the same to the Court with copies to his superiors. It is also stated that he subjected the seized articles to the Property Form. They also produced both the accused No.1 and accused No.2 who were taken into their custody in the spot, before the Court.

¶77

PW-1 has further stated that on the date 16-10-2007, he sent the sample articles for their chemical examination to Bengaluru with his request letter as per Ex.P-7. He

¶78

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶79

¶80

stated that a report was also collected from the Chemical Examiner as per Ex.P-8. He further stated that he recorded the statements of CW-1 and CW-2 on the date 26-09-2007 and confiscated the remaining goods to the State, in accordance with law. Stating so, the witness has identified the list of articles seized at Ex.P-3, FIR at Ex.P-4, the list of the details of the articles for submission to the proper authorities at Ex.P-5, ' the record of reasons to search before warrant ’ at Ex.P-6, his requisition letter at Ex.P-7, the Chemical Examiner’s Report at Ex.P-8, order for confiscation of excise articles at Ex.P-9 and photographs at Exs.P-10 to P-13.

¶81

Both PW-1 and PW-4 were subjected to a detailed cross-examination wherein they adhered to their original versions.

¶82

PW-2 (CW-1) - Nandeesh and PW-3 (CW-2) - Murthy, though were projected as panchas to the alleged seizure panchanama at Ex.P-2 and as the persons

¶83

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶84

¶85

accompanying the raiding team, but neither of them have supported the case of the prosecution. Both of them, in a uniform manner, have stated that, though their signatures were obtained on Ex.P-2 - spot Mahazar, but they do not know for what purpose their signatures were obtained. They have also stated that at the time of obtaining their signatures, the Police have neither shown them the accused nor the articles at MO-1 to MO-13. Even after treating them hostile, the prosecution could not elicit any further statements from them in its support.

¶86

The very basis of proceeding to the house of the accused persons by PW-1 and his team is about the alleged credible information said to have been received by him (PW-1) about the activities in illicit liquor in the house of the accused persons. According to PW-1, since there was no sufficient time enabling him to obtain search warrant before proceeding to conduct the raid of the house of the accused, he prepared a document called ' the record of reasons to search before warrant ’ as per Ex.P-6. It is this document

¶87

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶88

¶89

which the learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contends as not in order. His only contention is that, the said document, major portion of which, appears to be in cyclostyled form, mentions that the credible information was received by the signatory to that Report even prior to 4:50 p.m. With this, he submits that it (Ex.P-6) does not clearly and specifically mention as to at what exact time they received the credible information, as such, it cannot be held that they had no sufficient time to obtain the search warrant from the learned Magistrate.

¶90

A perusal of the document at Ex.P-6, i.e. ' the record of reasons to search before warrant ’ would go to show that, the alleged search in the house of accused is said to have been commenced at 5:00 p.m. on the same day i.e. on the date 26-09-2007.

¶91

A reading of the first paragraph of the said document at Ex.P-6 goes to show that on the date 26-09-2007, at 5:00 p.m., an information was received about the

¶92

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶93

¶94

possession or manufacture or sale of illicit liquor in the address of the accused and he (the signatory to Ex.P-6) along with the raiding team including the panchas proceeded to the spot and commenced the search activity at 5:00 p.m.

¶95

In the second paragraph, he has stated that the said information was received by him 'before 4:50 p.m.'

¶96

No doubt, it does not specifically say as to at what exact time the credible information has been received, however, the timing mentioned there as '4:50 p.m' cannot be isolated and read. When the said paragraph in its entirety is read, the said sentence that the information was received 'prior to 4:50 p.m.' is further continued and shows that by the time the information was received by them, they had no sufficient time to obtain necessary orders by the Court for searching of the premises. It is therefore he had to prepare the document called ' the record of reasons to

¶97

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶98

¶99

search before warrant ’ under Section 54 of the Excise Act and rushed to the spot.

¶100

A reading of the said document in its entirety would clearly impart a meaning that there was hardly a difference of ten minutes for him between the receipt of the information and he reaching the spot and initiating the act of search. Thus, the said interval period of ten minutes, since being too short for him to obtain any order or warrant from the Court for the search, he had invoked his power under Section 54 of the Excise Act by preparing the document called ' the record of reasons to search before warrant ’ as per Ex.P-6.

¶101

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ex.P-6 is too vague, as such, it cannot be relied and acted upon, is not acceptable.

¶102

The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 gives a clear and detailed account of how all the four of them i.e. including PW-2 and PW-3 (panchas) proceeded to the spot and after

¶103

¶104

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶105

identifying themselves to the inmates in the house continued their search activity. Merely because the two independent witnesses (panchas) i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the prosecution, that itself is not sufficient to either disbelieve or suspect the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that, both PW-1 and PW-4 are the Departmental Officers/officials. In such an event, if their evidence is capable of inspiring confidence in the Court to believe them, then there is no bar in accepting their evidence and proceeding further in the matter.

¶106

The said principle is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1311 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that, the testimony of Police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The

¶107

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶108

¶109

presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of Police personnel as of other persons and it is not a

¶110

proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down.

¶111

In the instant case, a detailed reading of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 since goes to show that their evidence has come out uniformly and has given a detailed account about the act of raiding the house of the accused and the seizure of the articles including MO-1 to MO-13 and since both PW-1 and PW-4 have successfully withstood the detailed searching cross-examination and have adhered to their original versions, I do not find any reason either to suspect or disbelieve their evidence. Thus, the conducting of the raid on the house of the accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the evening of the date 26-09-2007 by PW-1 and PW-4 at 4:50 p.m. stands established.

¶112

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶113

¶114

The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 further

¶115

establishes that the articles shown in Ex.P-5 were seized by

¶116

them in the spot including the articles marked at MO-1 to MO-13. Both these witnesses, more particularly, PW-1 has given a detailed account of how the samples were obtained and how those samples were segregated and got separated by specifically marking and pasting with the signatures of the panchas pasted upon them and sealing with the model seal at Ex.P-1. Thus, without giving any scope for tampering of those articles, PW-1 has taken precaution to retain them as in the condition they were at the time of their seizure. Further, he has also stated that even the remaining articles from which MO-1 to MO-13 were separated as samples, were also seized by them under the

¶117

same panchanama at Ex.P-2 and were taken along with them. He has stated that he subjected those articles to Property Form. Though the said Property Form, which can be found in the records of the Trial Court placed before this Court, has not been marked as an exhibit, still, his

¶118

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶119

¶120

evidence that he has subjected them to Property Form, has not been specifically denied. Further, the documentary evidence at Ex.P-3 read with Ex.P-5 gives the details of all those articles seized by PW-1 during the raid, from the house of accused No.1 and accused No.2. As such, merely because PW-1 is said to have not pasted the slips on each of the bottles seized by him, which run into few hundreds of bottles, by that itself, it cannot be held that the seizure creates doubt in the mind of the Court. Thus, the seizure of the articles mentioned in Ex.P-5 and segregation of MO-1 to MO-13 from them, also stands proved.

¶121

The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence at Ex.P-7 would go to show that those sample articles which were thirteen in number (MO-1 to MO-13) were sent by him for their chemical examination to the Central Chemical Laboratory, Excise Department, Bengaluru. The report given by the said Chemical Examiner which is at Ex.P-8 shows that the samples taken as Original Choice Whisky were containing 33.5^o U.P. as strength of

¶122

¶123

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶124

alcohol. The other six sealed bottles of Highway Fine Whisky were containing 49.9^o U.P. as strength of alcohol in them. 1000 ml. (one liter) sample blended Whisky was also containing 48.3^o U.P. as strength of alcohol in them. It is noticing the presence of the degree of strength of alcohol in the samples received by them, the Chemical Examiner has opined that that there was presence of ethanol in them, which was not in accordance with the Standard of Indian Bureau of Standards and that they were illicit liquor. The said finding of none else than the Chemical Examiner finds no reason to disbelieve it, as such, it is established that, the goods seized from the house of accused No.1 and accused No.2 were the illicit liquors and that the possession of which, by the accused persons was admittedly without any valid licence or permit by the competent authority.

¶125

The evidence of PW-5 the Chief Officer of the Town Municipality, Malavalli, who has stated that he has issued the house tax extract with respect to the house,

¶126

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶127

¶128

where the raid was said to be conducted and has identified the said extract at Ex.P-16, would go to show that the said house, as on the date of the raid, was standing in the name of petitioner No.2, who admittedly, is the wife of the present petitioner No.1. Further, the photographs at Exs.P-10 to P-13, which corroborates the narration of how the places in the house was depicting at the time of raid also shows that the seizure of the goods as mentioned in

¶129

Ex.P-2 was made by PW-1 joined by PW-2 to PW-4.

¶130

It was alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, mere presence of the articles without the knowledge on the part of the alleged possessor would not attract Section 32 of the Excise Act.

¶131

A careful reading of Section 32 of the Excise Act goes to show that it does not specifically mention that the knowledge on the part of the possessors is mandatory in every act of alleged illegal possession or illegal manufacturing of illicit liquor. However in the instant case,

¶132

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶133

¶134

when we see the quantity and nature of the goods seized from the house of accused No.1 and accused No.2, which is described in Exs.P-2, P-3 and P-5 and also as could be seen in the photographs at Exs.MO-1 to MO-13, it is to the knowledge of any one that such a kind of large quantity of bottles, which, according to Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5, 144 bottles +96 bottles =240 bottles, filled with illicit liquor, 600 empty liquor bottles and 2 kgs. of corks with the name as Original Choice Whisky printed upon them and 15 liters of blended whisky, themselves would clearly go to show that, their possession in different places in their house was with the clear and complete knowledge about the same by the accused. As such, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 coupled with the documentary evidence at Exhibits P-2, P-5 and MO-10 to MO-13 themselves establish that the accused, after knowing the nature of the articles were with the knowledge and possession of the same. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the said point also, is not acceptable.

¶135

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶136

¶137

Since it is considering these materials placed before them, both in the form of oral and documentary evidence, both the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court have rightly come to the conclusion of holding the accused No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Excise Act and convicted him and sentenced in proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said judgments.

¶138

The impugned judgments have also convicted the accused No.1 who is the present petitioner for the offence punishable even under Section 38A of the Excise Act.

¶139

Section 38A of the Excise Act speaks about the penalty for allowing the premises, etc., to be used for the purpose of committing an offence under the Act.

¶140

In the instant case, even according to the prosecution, the alleged offence under Section 38A of the Excise Act was attributed mainly against accused No.2

¶141

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶142

¶143

(petitioner No.2 herein), since the property in which the illegal activity was said to be carrying was standing in her name, as evidenced in the evidence of PW-5 and documentary evidence at Ex.P-16. Since the very petitioner No.2 (accused No.2) is reported to be dead during the pendency of the revision petition, and that her petition has stood abated by the order of the Court, the offence punishable under Section 38A of the Excise Act would not stand as against accused No.1, though the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Excise Act would lie against him. As such it is only to modify the said judgment of conviction under Section 38A of the Excise Act, as against accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) and to the said limited extent, interference by this Court is warranted.

¶144

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶145

O R D E R

¶146

[i] The Criminal Revision Petition stands partly

allowed .

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

[ii] The impugned judgment of conviction dated 20-09-2012 and order on sentence dated 21-09-2012, passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, in Criminal Case No.748/2007, holding the petitioner No.1 herein (accused No.1) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, which was further confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No.105/2012, dated 10-09-2013, is hereby set aside.

¶151

[iii] The accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) - Sri. Kullegowda, S/o. late Bojjegowda, Aged about 62 years, R/o. N.E.S. Extension, 4th Cross, Malavalli Town, Mandya District, Pin Code-571 401, stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶152

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶153

¶154

[iv] However, the impugned judgment impugned judgment of conviction dated 20-09-2012 and order

¶155

on sentence dated 21-09-2012, passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, in Criminal Case No.748/2007, holding the petitioner No.1 herein (accused No.1) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and sentencing him accordingly for the proven guilt, which was further confirmed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No.105/2012, dated 10-09-2013, stands confirmed.

¶156

[v] The order regarding the destruction of MO-1 to MO-13 remains unaltered.

¶157

[vi] Petitioner No.1 (accused No.1) is directed to surrender before the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, within

¶158

Crl.R.P.No.871/2013

¶159

¶160

forty-five (45) days from today and to serve the sentence.

¶161

Registry to transmit a copy of this order along with the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records to the concerned Courts immediately so as to enable the concerned Trial Court to proceed further in the matter to secure the accused person, in accordance with law, to serve the sentence.

¶162

Sd/JUDGE

¶163

BMV*

Kullegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kullegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhuvaneshwari Vs Sri Vishwanatha G

Bharathi Dinesh Poojary Vs Anil a v

Chandrashekhar Vs Harish S Karkera

Sri Boralingegowda B K Vs Sri Lokesh G R

Smt G S Sumithra Vs Sri H Narayana Rao

Smt. Nisha Vs State by Vijayanagara Police