Allowed

Rasheed Mohammadjafer Kanakyavale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023CRL.RP/100118/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside convictions for offences under Section 273 IPC and the COTPA. The court held the investigation was invalid because the police failed to obtain a proper judicial order permitting investigation of a non-cognizable offence under Section 155 CrPC, merely obtaining an endorsement instead.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; convictions in CC 270/2014 and Criminal Appeal 10/2015 set aside; accused acquitted; penalty refunded.

Rasheed Mohammadjafer Kanakyavale Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100118 OF 2016

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RASHEED MOHAMMADIJAFER KANAKYAVALE. AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KHANDRIYA NAGAR, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI

¶7

SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH WADEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2023.10.18 12:15:28 +0530

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SAVANUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 12/05/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. I ADDITION DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL 10/15 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER CONVICTION DATED 06/01/2015 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAVANUR CC 270/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 273 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SEC 5(1) R/W SEC. 22 OF CIGARETTES AND

¶15

¶16

ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATIONS OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) ACT.

¶17

IN THIS PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD, JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS” THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The revision petitioner/accused has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed on January 6, 2015, in CC No. 270 of 2014 by the Civil Judge and JMFC in Savanur (referred to as the "trial Court"). This conviction was subsequently confirmed by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on May 12, 2016, in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haveri (referred to as the "Appellate Court").

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this Revision Petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

¶21

The prosecution's brief facts are as follows:

¶22

¶23

On August 13, 2013, at around 6:15 pm, PW1, a Police Sub-Inspector from Jalanagar Police Station, received credible information that the accused had stored tobacco and nicotine products called "siddhu ghukta" worth Rs. 42,480/in a house located in Khadariya Nagar in Savanur Town. These products were harmful to human health. In response to this information, PW1 visited the location with his staff, seized the tobacco products, and documented the seizure under a mahazar. Following this, he filed a complaint with the Station House Officer of the relevant Police Station. Upon receiving the complaint, the Savanur Police registered a case under Crime No.140 of 2013 against the accused for offences punishable under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1) and 22 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (referred to as the "COTP Act").

¶24

PW1 also conducted a seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses, as documented in Exhibit P2. The

¶25

¶26

Investigating Officer obtained permission to conduct the investigation for the alleged non-cognizable offense on August 14, 2013. The Investigating Officer also obtained a certificate from the Forensic Science Laboratory for the examination of the seized material, recorded statements of witnesses, and subsequently filed a charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offenses punishable under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 22 and 5(1) of the COTP Act.

¶27

Following the filing of the charge sheet, the learned

¶28

Civil Judge and JMFC in Savanur took cognizance and registered a case in Crime No. 270 of 2014. A non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused as he was initially reported as absconding. Subsequently, the accused appeared before the trial court and secured bail. The prosecution furnished the necessary documents to the accused, as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the substance of the plea was

¶29

¶30

recorded by the Magistrate. In response, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶31

To establish the accused's guilt, the prosecution

¶32

presented four witnesses as PWs1 to PW4 and introduced seven documents as Exhibits P1 to P7, along with marking material objects MOs1 to 12. A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded to address the incriminating circumstances against the accused. The accused, in response, completely denied the prosecution witnesses' testimony and opted not to present any defense on his behalf. Following arguments from both sides, the trial court issued the contested judgment of conviction and sentence. In an attempt to contest this judgment, the accused filed an appeal before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015. Regrettably, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Frustrated by the judgments of conviction and sentences imposed by both the trial court and the

¶33

¶34

Appellate Court, the accused has sought recourse to this Court by filing this Revision petition.

¶35

Learned counsel representing the revision petitioner has presented the following arguments:

¶36

(i) Both the lower courts failed to appropriately assess the evidence on record in accordance with the law and the facts of the case;

¶37

(ii) Section 5(1) of the COTP Act is not applicable in this case. The prosecution alleges that the accused had Siddhu Gukta packets in his house, and he did not intend to sell them or use them for any other commercial purpose. Therefore, Section 5 of the COTP Act does not apply;

¶38

7.1. The counsel also draws attention to the provisions of Section 3(m) of the COTP Act.

¶39

7.2. Section 7 of the COTP Act is also inapplicable because the accused did not have any intention to sell the Gukta packets.

¶40

¶41

7.3. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer

¶42

failed to issue a show-cause notice as required under Section 18 of the COTP Act.

¶43

7.4. The alleged offence is punishable under Section

¶44

22, with a maximum penalty of two years or a fine of up to

¶45

Rs. 1,000/- or both. Hence, the alleged offense is noncognizable. However, the Investigating Officer did not follow the prescribed procedure before initiating the investigation, as required by law. Therefore, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the alleged offense.

¶46

7.5. To substantiate his arguments, the learned

¶47

counsel relied upon the following decisions:

¶48

1. LALITA KUMARI v. GOVT. OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS; (2014)2 SCC 1;

¶49

2. ABHIJITH v. STATE OF KERALA : 2022 SCC Online Ker.916;

¶50

3. VAGGEPPA GURALINGA JANGALIGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA; (CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101997 OF 2019 DECIDED ON 10.12.2019).

¶51

¶52

On the other hand, the learned Additional

¶53

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent supports the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is re-appreciated by the Appellate Court

¶54

and confirmed and submitted that there is no ground for interference in this Revision Petition.

¶55

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would arise for my consideration in this revision petition:

¶56

Whether the Investigating Officer has obtained the permission from the trial Court to conduct to investigate the alleged commission of offence required under Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the provisions of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003?

¶57

¶58

Whether the Revision Petitioner has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Court?

¶59

What Order?

¶60

My answer to the above points are as follows:

¶61

Point No.1: in the negative;

¶62

Point No.2: in the affirmative;

¶63

Point No.3: as per final order

¶64

Regarding Point No.1:

¶65

It is not in dispute that the alleged offence punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Police Act is a non-cognizable offence. When the report is received by

¶66

the Station House Officer of Police Station in respect of commission of non-cognizable offence, the Station House Officer has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the said provision. Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the procedure for investigation and for

¶67

¶68

taking cognizance of non-cognizable offence reads as follows:

¶69

“Section 155: Information as to noncognizable cases and investigation of such cases. (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a noncognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

¶70

(2) No police officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

¶71

(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. ”

¶72

¶73

Therefore, when the SHO of the police station receives a report regarding commission of non-cognizable offence, it is his duty to enter the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required to pass an order permitting the police officer to investigate the case as mandated by the provisions of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. stated supra. Unless, the police officer is permitted by an order of the jurisdictional Magistrate to investigate the noncognizable offence, the police officer does not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter and file a final report or the charge sheet.

¶74

In this regard, it is relevant to mention the following decisions of this Court.

¶75

This Court in the case of Praven Basavanneppa

¶76

Shivalli Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2017)1 Air

¶77

Kant R. 461 considered the requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. where case relates to a non-cognizable

¶78

¶79

offence, in para 10 of the judgment this Court has observes as follows:

¶80

“10. S. 155 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of the information received by the Officer in charge of a Police Station relating to commission of non-cognizable offence. As per sub-section (1) of S.155 Cr.P.C. when an Officer in charge of Police Station receives the information as to the commission of a noncognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by such Officer in the prescribed form ‘and refer the informant to the Magistrate’. Sub-section (2) of S.155 Cr.P.C. makes it clear, that no Police Officer shall investigate a noncognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit case for trial. Sub-section(1) of S.155 Cr.P.C. which casts a duty on the station house officer who receives information as to the commission of noncognizable offence to enter or caust to be entered the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate, does not enable the SHO himself to approach the Magistrate and seek orders. The provision makes it clear, that the

¶81

¶82

SHO shall refer the informant to the Magistrate, thereby, making clear that it is for the informant to seek the orders of jurisdictional Magistrate for issue of direction to the police for investigation of the case. The Magistrate, on being approached by the informant, if orders investigation, the SHO concerned would get jurisdiction to register the crime, investigate the matter and not otherwise.”

¶83

This Court in the case of Mukkatira Anitha

¶84

Machaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and another in

¶85

Crl.P.5934/2009 decided on 20/8/2013 considered the

¶86

scope of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. has observed in para 5 as follows:-

¶87

“5. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure to be adopted in respect of an information received by the officer in charge of a police station relating to commission of a noncognizable offence. According to sub- section (1) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C., when an officer in charge of the Police Station receives an information as to the commission of a noncognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the

¶88

¶89

Magistrate. According to sub-section (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without a order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Thus reading of subsection(1) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the duty of the SHO, who receives information as to the commission of a noncognizable offence is only to enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the prescribed book and refer the informant to the Magistrate. It is for the informant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek a direction to the police for investigation. If the Magistrate on being approached by the informant, directs investigation, the Police Officer concerned would get jurisdiction to investigate the matter.

¶90

10.3. In the said judgment, in paragraph 6, it is further

¶91

observed as follows:-

¶92

“In the case on hand, as noticed supra, upon receipt of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the SHO of Virajpet Police Station registered the same as NCR and submitted a requisition to the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter, based on

¶93

¶94

which, the Magistrate granted permission. Thus, the procedure adopted by the SHO is without the authority of law and the same is not contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the permission granted by the Magistrate on such requisition is also without any basis, as such, the investigation carried on by the police and the charge sheet filed thereon are without the authority of law. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. However, it is open to Respondent No.2, who is the informant before the police to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek necessary orders as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C.”

¶95

Therefore, the SHO of the police Station has no

¶96

authority of law ,unless the jurisdictional magistrate permits the police officer for investigation of the non-cognizable offence.

¶97

This Court in the case of PADUBIDRI MEMBERS

¶98

LOUNGE VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR

¶99

GENERAL OF POLICE in W.P.NO.42073-75/2018 decided on 03^rd October, 2012 considered the mandatory provision of

¶100

¶101

Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. where the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 87 of the K.P.Act. In paragraphs 6 and 7, this Court has held as follows:-

¶102

“6. As per the above provisions, when an Officer-in-charge of the police station receives an information with regard to commission of noncognizable offence/s, i) he shall enter or caused to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be maintained by the said Officer in a prescribed form and ii) refer the informant to the Magistrate. Further, Sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. mandates that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial.”

¶103

In the instant case, police have failed to comply with the requirements of Section 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have referred the informant to the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C., or obtained necessary order as envisaged under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., before embarking upon investigation. Thus, on the

¶104

¶105

face of it, the respondents are seen to have violated the provisions of Sections 155(1) and 155(2) of Cr.P.C.”

¶106

In the case of VEERANAGOUDA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in CRL.P. NO.102021/2018

¶107

decided on 11^th January, 2019, considered the requirements of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and has held in para 9 as follows:-

¶108

“9. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that when a requisition was given to the Magistrate, only an endorsement is made as permitted to investigate as per section 155 of Cr.P.C. on the very request letter itself and the same is not in accordance with law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply his mind and passed any considered order. On the requisition only an endorsement is made and the same is not the permission in the eye of law. Therefore in reality it is not permission at all and the prosecution has not satisfied the Court that mandatory requirements are complied before proceeding with the investigation in the matter. Legal aspect has not been complied and the same has been over looked by the Court below while ordering for registering the criminal case against the petitioners’ herein. Looking to these materials it goes to show that it is the abuse of process of Court to

¶109

¶110

continue the proceedings. Not only it is wasting of valuable time and energy of the Court. Even if the trial is proceeded with, it is a futile exercise in the matter.”

¶111

It is also relevant to mention here has to Chapter V

¶112

Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, 1968 which deals with investigation of non-cognizable offence. The same reads thus:

¶113

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶114

1. Report under Section 154.- (1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same.

¶115

Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

¶116

2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

¶117

¶118

Considering all these decisions, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.101997 of 2019 decided on 10^th December, 2019, has laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of judicial magistrate of the State. The same is as follows:

¶119

“18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of police station seeking permission to investigate into the non-cognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the police station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of police station

¶120

¶121

and pass necessary order either permitting the police officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. specifically provides that no police officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in Subsection (2) of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’.

¶122

Therefore, under Rule I of Chapter V, the

¶123

Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2 of the said Chapter, Magistrate has to specify in his order

¶124

¶125

the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court in Criminal Petition No.101997 of 2019 laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrates working in the State.

¶126

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted’ on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶127

ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.

¶128

¶129

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶130

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶131

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.”

¶132

In the case on hand, on the basis of the complaint

¶133

filed by PW1-Ramesh C on 13^th August, 2013, the Station

¶134

¶135

House Officer of Savanur Police registered case as Crime No.140 of 2013 against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the COTP Act and under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR to the Court as per Exhibit P5 on 14^th August, 2013. PW1-Ramesh, Police Sub-Inspector has deposed that on 13^th August, 2013 when he was in the Police Station he received credible information as to the possession of prohibited tobacco product in the house of the accused and on the same day, he has lodged complaint to the Station House Officer of Savanur Police as per Exhibit P1. PW4-Sulochana Honnappa Garaga, Police Sub-Inspector has deposed that on 13^th August, 2013, PW1 has lodged complaint against noncognizable offence and she has received the same and registered a case in Crime No.140 of 2013 after obtaining the permission from the Magistrate. Exhibit P3 is the letter submitted by Sub-Inspector of Savanur Police to the Civil Judge, Savanur, in which it is sought permission from the Magistrate to permit to investigate this case. In this letter, he has clearly stated as to the seizure of properties from the

¶136

¶137

possession of the accused. On receipt of this letter, CJ and JMFC, Savanur has endorsed on this letter as, “permitted sd/-”. The Investigating Officer submitted the FIR to the Court on 14^th August, 2013 at 3.30 pm. These materials would indicate that before investigation, the Investigating Officer has not obtained permission from the Magistrate to investigate this case. Prior to obtaining the permission from the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer, after receipt of complaint from PW1, along with the seizure panchnama dated 13^th August, 2013 seized the property in question under seizure mahazar Exhibit P2. On the next day, the Investigating Officer has obtained permission from the Magistrate is clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The jurisdictional magistrate has not examined the contents of requisition, and has not recorded his finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated and how the Investigating Officer has completed his part of investigation before prior permission from the Court. He has mechanically endorsed on Exhibit P3 as “permitted”, which is not sustainable in law and contrary

¶138

¶139

to provisions of Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from this, Investigating Officer has also not followed the mandatory provisions as to the seizure of property as contemplated in Chapter VII - Search and Seizure of Code of

¶140

Criminal Procedure and also Section 18 of the COTP Act. Section 12 of the COTP Act, deals with the prohibition of sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to minors. This section is clearly intended to restrict the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to individuals under the age of eighteen, commonly referred to as minors, in order to protect the health and well-being of young people and prevent them from developing tobacco-related health issues. Violation of this section may result in legal consequences and penalties as provided under the Act.

¶141

The non-compliance of all these provisions also

¶142

becomes fatal to the case of prosecution. Both the courts have not discussed anything as to the aforesaid provisions of law and thereby committed an error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which calls for

¶143

¶144

interference by this Court since the Investigating Officer has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by complying/following the mandatory provisions of Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure and also the Chapter VII of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 12 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. Apart from this, the Investigating Officer has also not complied with the provisions of Section 18 of the COTP Act, which is as follows:

¶145

“ 18. Giving opportunity to the owner of

¶146

seized packages .(1) No order adjudging confiscation or directing payment of costs shall be made unless the owner or person in possession of the package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products has been given a notice in writing informing him of grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such package and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in writing, within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice, against the confiscation mentioned therein, and, if he so desires, of being heard personally or through a representative in the matter:

¶147

¶148

Provided that, where no such notice is given within a period of ninety days from the date of the seizure of the package of cigarettes or of any other tobacco products, such package shall be returned, after the expiry of that period, to the owner or the person from whose possession it was seized.

¶149

(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall, as far as may be, apply to every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1).”

¶150

Viewed from any angle, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative and answer point No.2 in the affirmative.

¶151

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I pass the following:

¶152

O R D E R

¶153

Revision Petition is allowed;

¶154

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06^th January, 2015 passed in CC No.270 of 2014 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Savanur (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court”) which is

¶155

¶156

confirmed by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12^th May, 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2015 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri, are set aside;

¶157

Accused is acquitted for offence punishable under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 22 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (Prohibition of advertisement and regulation of trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution), Act, 2003.

¶158

Penalty amount, if any, paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him;

¶159

Registry to send the copy of this judgment to the concerned courts, along with trial court records.

¶160

Sd/-

¶161

JUDGE

¶162

lnn

Rasheed Mohammadjafer Kanakyavale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheed Mohammadjafer Kanakyavale 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

Devanna S/O Dyavaiah @ Thammaiah Vs Dyavaiah S/O Rajaiah Since Dead by Lrs

Nandappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Padmavva Junjannanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkateshreddy @ Imtiyaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajagopal S/O Ramanna, Vs State of Karnataka

Shubha Shanshikanth Vs the Commssioner