State appealed acquittal in excise offence case involving duty-free liquor transport. High Court found no illegality or infirmity in acquittal and dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court's judgment.
Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY UDUPI POLICE STATION, UDUPI - 576101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by SANDHYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka
SMT.MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O R.RAMESH, R/O 13/1, 4TH CROSS, SOMESHWAR NAGAR, YASHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE - S 22. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHRIVATSA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 15.09.2014 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT AT UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.43/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN SETING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTNECE DATED 29.07.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, UGUPI, IN C.C.NO.4496/2004, THEREBY, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 38A OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:46029 CRL.A No. 113 of 2015
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, in Crl.A.No.43/2010 dated 15.09.2014.
referred in the same rank as referred by the trial Court.
The Sub-Inspector of Kaup Range had filed a charge
sheet against the respondent/accused No.2 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 r/w 38A of Karnataka Excise Act (for short 'the KE Act') alleging that on 11.03.2003 at about 3.45 p.m., accused No.1 being the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.CTM-9232 found transporting 1472.400 liters of duty not paid liquor illegally at NH 17, Yenagudde, Katpadi Village, Udupi Taluk. Accused No.2 is the owner of the
above said lorry. Thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.
NC: 2023:KHC:46029 CRL.A No. 113 of 2015
accused No.2/respondent had preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A.No.43/2010. The same was allowed and the accused was acquitted by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by this impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.
on perusal of records, following points would arise for my consideration:
ground to interfere with the impugned judgments of acquittal?
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : As per final order.
Regarding point No.1:
NC: 2023:KHC:46029 CRL.A No. 113 of 2015
13 of its judgment, which reads as under:
" 13. PW.1 Excise Inspector has deposed that on 11-03-2018 at about 3.30 pm. he and his staff were checking the vehicles and at that time one lorry came and they made signal to stop and he did not stop and moved further and they chased him and thereafter, after 90 meters the said driver stopped the lorry and the driver and another person jumped from the lorry and ran away in the lands and they tried to catch hold of them but could not secure them. He has further deposed that thereafter, when they made search in the lorry, they found some boxes and they contained Windsor Whisky and Koday Liquor and they secured PW.3 Sathish and another Halagappa and they were not having time to obtain search warrant and therefore, they prepared search memo and made search of the lorry and it was having No.CTM-9323 and in the cabin there was xerox copy of R.C. book and in that it was written CTM 9323 and the name of one R.Ramesh, S/o.Hanumanthappa, Ramahalli, Kengeri Hobali, Bangalore South and they seized liquor bottles which were in the lorry and prepared sample and prepared seizure mahazar Ex.P1. He has further deposed that thereafter, he prepared FIR which is at
Ex.P2 and sample seal which is at Ex.P3 and the search memo which is at Ex.P4. He has further deposed that he has seen the driver who ran away and he could identify him. He has further deposed that the seized liquor bottles and lorry has been handed over to the Authorized Officer. The liquor bottles which were seized were marked at MOs.1 to 15. He has further deposed that accused No.1 was absconding and thereafter, he was arrested on 2803-2006 and thereafter, he has been released on bail. The only one question is asked in the crossexamination of PW.1 for which he has answered that there were 2 persons in the lorry and they were male. PW.1 has not stated anything regarding accused No.2. The accused No.2 is a lady."
proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2023:KHC:46029 CRL.A No. 113 of 2015
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
PGG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State by Udupi Police Station
Mariyamma
G Basesavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
