Allowed

M/S Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Superintendent of Excise

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024CRL.P/102000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings against M/s Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that without a factory investigation or evidence linking labels to the accused, continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Pending proceedings in C.C. No. 45/2018 as against the petitioner were quashed.

M/S Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102000 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S BLUE OCEAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. PLOT NO.A1, PHASE II, MARGOA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ST. JOSE DE AREAL, SALCETE GOA -403709 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SRI. JAYABAL MUTHU

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI B.K.SAMPATHKUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI SURAJ SAMPATH, FOR SRI SURESH SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, ANMOD POLICE STATION, ANMOD -581121 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH EXCISE SUB -INSPECTOR, ANMOD STATION UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 581 121 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , DHARWAD.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.45/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.003/2016-17 FILED BY THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶20

RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 UNDER SECTIONS 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) AND 43(A) OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 (ANNEXURE A) AND THE CHARGE SHEET FILED ON 27.12.2016 (ANNEXURE E), PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DANDELI.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned Senior Advocate

¶25

for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer:

¶27

“ Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.45/2018 arising out of Crime No.003/2016-17 filed by the respondents against the petitioner/accused No.5 under Sections 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (Annexure-A) and the charge sheet filed on 27.12.2016 (Annexure-E) pending before the Hon’ble Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli.”

¶28

Petitioner-M/s Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,

¶29

represented by its Manager is arraigned as accused No.5 in Crime No.003/2016-17 for the offences punishable under

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶32

Sections 11, 14, 32(1), 38A and 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶33

Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present criminal petition are as under:

¶34

A mini lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/B-0992 was intercepted at the border of Karnataka and Goa States near Anmod check post by the Excise Authorities. When the lorry was inspected, liquor bottles were found. On the liquor bottles there were labels affixed which would indicate that the liquor contained in those bottles was manufactured by the Petitioner Company and quality of the liquor did not conform with the details found on the labels.

¶35

As such, panchanama was conducted and, the liquor bottles and the mini lorry which was intercepted by the Excise Authorities were seized.

¶36

After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶39

Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the case based on the charge sheet materials. Same is challenged in this petition.

¶40

Sri B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner contended that, none of the offences invoked by the Excise Department would be applicable to the petitioner, inasmuch as, there was no investigation conducted to find out whether the labels found on the liquor bottles belonged to the petitioner-Company so also the cap and seal on the liquor bottles.

¶41

He further pointed out that even according to the Excise officials, the quality of the liquor said to have contained in the liquor bottles which were seized by the Excise Authorities were not up to the requisite standard as per the details found on the labels and therefore, they were sub standard or spurious liquor.

¶42

He further contended that, in the absence of any investigation conducted at the factory of the petitioner and without ascertaining as to whether petitioner had any role in transporting the said liquor to the consignee, filing of the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶45

charge sheet against the petitioner has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, sought to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondents contended that admittedly the liquor bottles were seized by the Excise Authorities under mahazar which were being transported in the mini lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/B-0992.

¶47

She further contended that the labels found on the liquor bottles did mention that they were manufactured by the petitioner-Company. Therefore, petitioner is bound to stand for the trial and explain as to how the labels of the petitioner Company were found on the seized liquor. Therefore, petition needs to be dismissed.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶49

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that admittedly there was no investigation conducted in the factory outlet of the petitioner-Company about the veracity

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶51

of the labels found on the liquor bottles did belong to the petitioner- Company.

¶52

It is possible that some miscreants would have duplicated the labels; so also the cap and seal and tried to transport to make it appear that it was original liquor manufactured by the petitioner being sold in the State of Karnataka taking note of the fact that the price for the liquor in Goa State is on the lower side compared to the price of liquor in the Karnataka State.

¶53

At any rate, the investigation agency without conducting proper investigation with regard to the labels, seals and caps at the factory or the manufacturing unit of the petitionerCompany assuming that it belongs to petitioner-Company and arraigned the petitioner as an accused in the case has resulted in miscarriage of justice which has not been properly appreciated while taking cognizance by the learned Trial Magistrate.

¶54

If the Trial is to continue as against the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served in the absence of any material evidence placed on record by the Excise Authorities to establish

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15580 CRL.P No. 102000 of 2024

¶57

the nexus between seized articles and petitioner-Company. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise.

¶58

It is in such circumstances, this Court can exercise the power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the pending charge sheet as against the petitioner.

¶59

19. Hence the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶62

(ii) Pending proceedings in C.C.No.45/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli, arising out of Crime No.003/2016-17, as against the petitioner, stands quashed .

¶63

(iii) It is made clear that the Order passed in favour of the petitioner shall not affect the right of the prosecution insofar as other accused are concerned.

¶64

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶65

kcm

¶66

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 14

M/S Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Superintendent of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Superintendent of Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Fayum Alias Fayumbadsha S/O Jafar Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Markhand S/O Timmanna Bandiwaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayanti C Kalawadmath Vs the State of Karnataka

Parappa S/O. Yellappa Byakod Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok S/O Chandrappa Kempannanavar Vs State of Karnataka