¥ .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3&9 DAY OF SEPPEMBE12, ié0'oé_'V:-~-I: f _
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE Hui,uvADj17
REV: 5:024 « --
CRIMINAL: PETITION.NO.44.4/2008;'
B ETWEEN
PARASAPPA ._ «
S/O SIDDAPPAKALASAD ~ _
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC:A(}'RICU_LTURIS'I"jV ..
AUTODRIVEE' _' _ - *
R/C) HAGA§<1.UE:;v1L.L':.GE " _
TALUK BADAMIV...--';'-- " I »
DIST }3AG_AL{_K(;_)T » ...PE'i'ITIONER
{BY ZVSRIWP 'N315§oS:AN1AN«E, AD\}6CATE)
TEE STATE"'oE:KAR:NATAKA
BY' ITS AUTHORIS'ED OFFICER AND
. "«SUPERl1\E'I"EN_DENT 01:2' EXCISE
;3'A<}A1,;<0'TS_REP BY SPF
._ "RISE .CQURT"BU1LD1NG
A BAN(}_ALC)_F<E--O1_
...RESPONDENT
{BY P H GOTKHINDI, I-ICGP)
AV
THES CRLRP. IS FILED U/S397 85 401 CR.P.C BY__THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
‘E-i()N’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ORDER DT. 1.0.1.08 PASSED BY THE s.,..1,_’BAo_Ai;Ko?TfV 0″
f\5().57/0’7 AND AUTHORISED oFFicER/s1U15E_RII§TDND–P;1§rrj
op’ EXCISE, BAGALKOT IN EXE./E1B)’DrcR/Dv’V:i”i;_v/«0,g.Qo5–05
DATED 30.5.2007′ AND RELEA_siE.,V:frH_D ‘VE«H1:oLE;V§.¥o0oDs
AUTO RICKSHAW eEARIr;:.é'<IN FAVOUR 019"
"me PETITEONER. 0 V This "HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MAD}; 0RDER . -.-M
‘}.’?a:.:e’V petitio.fi’e-rfifrgs sought to set aside the order
.,V1’3’y,’a_0’the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in
V and also the order of confiscation
épassedk’ authorised officer dated 30.5.2007 in
/Drew 1 17/2005-2005.
fir”
3
2. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that only a presumption has been drawn by the
amthorised officer without looking into the €Vid€I1C(fi’:.'<«:':l1E§l
the seizure witnesses of panchanama have not *
the seizure of the Vehicle and much_;1es.s_it is niot"epro.\}'ed:V_by._V V'
the prosecution that the petitio';r1e1*:._l_li'v\l'asi"–yery
imowing fnlly well that he wagitiiagaiiyr loadirig éiehiirilsetf " A
transporting the liquor.
3. It is submitpted-l_ properly
aaiapreciatilnlggl appeal has erroneously
passed arlKorder confirmed the order of
the authorised”officer.
_ Lcontra, learned Government Pieader
l stibfriitted there is no error or illegality committed by
lii”‘-..«._e’iVther the teamed Sessions Judge or by the authorised
‘ «..{:i’f§ice;f. 4″ W
4
5. It is seen that the entire case of the petitioner
is that without his consent the vehicle has been used for
carrying liquor. What he submits is that he is notva:p._ar.ty
lot” illegal transportation of liquor and it is the .
\..»t.,>§’1icle who transported liquor and _thi__s was”net%_erikn_ow1aiV
to the petitioner and there shci’i1ld:’_’_’ih’ave’~. been
material placed by the prosecution before’ atitho:’ised * ii
officer to prove the fact ,that the– ip”e–tit’io_neri aiiparty in
such illegal transportatioirifla”BUtt.ii’»e§<ce'pVt seizure of the
tehicle as has whefn.._defenice taken is that
the vehivcle"ii_v driver without the
.i{l'1OWl€dgiiA€tt)l~"'{1;1€" least to some extent there
shouldp. have riiaterial placed in order to prove
V L'iC'i'1i ille transportation.
i’ _ .Coli_1iirming the very submission of the
V.4ii_tat:tttionet§ that he has admitted the fact of transportation
Q-§1£’:.”V”l’fit}”i’::)-l./lg forming an opinion on the basis of the cogent
.et.;’idence, it has been opined that it is the petitioner, who
1*’
5
in connivance, dishonestly transported liquor, which is an
erroneous View taken by the authorised officer.
7. The same View has been approved
Eémssioris Judge in appeal. On such presu.;riptionivr:”an”d–i ‘
although the presumption is there and” a, it
presumption is rebutted, some oi,’1ght._to
been produced by the proseeu-tifonp be.fur,e’thev_: aiiiithorised it
officer that the petitionerhas eiarri§e’dllliqnorillegally in his
\.-‘{f’l’1lC1€3. Mere admission lof.i_t1’a1islportatifGniiof liquor is not
sizfficientiitoiioonfiseatel the..:Vehic,1iel.”i What is to be noted is,
\.-rriether the peti’tiioriier7s”aotive participation is there and
with his ..kho\iXf1eidge. ifther illegal act has been done and on
thoseV’groEi’i*3ds,_the i/ehiicle is liable to be seized.
‘ ithe} instant case, when the vehicle was
saziizeid-,i._ V_v’Lheij’.V’petitioner has taken a defence that it is
~,.f:,”J”\$;3″$”,lj1Q1lt his knowledge and it is the driver who has
°€ij9a-.rispo:rtec1, then, it is for the prosecution as noted above
W
6
to place some material that there is connivance of the
petitioner with knowledge in illegal transportation of
liquor.
9. In the absence of any sucl1».mat.erial
<:ircumstances, the impugned orders. are iliable,
quashed. Therefore, the vehicleélhseizedh in 'co_n'ne't:–.tiVo1'1 'With V
_¥:3xcise Case No.EXE/E)lE3._[DTCR]'–li_};7/2Q05;2U06e"l)y order
céated 30.5.2007 passed as well
as the appeal in iby the Sessions
g E uclge are iii l ' »
Retj.urn tlie:'veh'ic1e- toiithe petitioner.
Sd/-5
JUDGE