High Court Karnataka High Court

State By Excise Sub Inspector vs Rangappa Vithal Kolkar on 29 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State By Excise Sub Inspector vs Rangappa Vithal Kolkar on 29 May, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
pm...

:54 THE man cam? 99 KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
mama ms 7:45 29?" mv o2= MAY zoos
at-?.r=<3RE M    4'
THE HG§~§'Bi.,E M:-musrzcs suamsa gf-:;f§§§:'   ~ }'
   :  Qgi    " A

 

BE'T'fi£EEi'\§:

Sme by Excise Subinspector   V   
Biaiihengai. 'L'  b  'PET E_Ti0'NEF§

(By 8rE.C.H.Jadhaxr, SP?)    
AND: 

1. Rangappa Vé£ha4§'§~§t:2_%karJ""'  .  - 
Age: Major, Q3c;Ba:1arfa_ Busivrzesis A '  2 
RIO Bailho§7§a§v_"_  ' '   

2. A:'\;£n:3 SEixia§A§.:;§9:a;§§;a4%'  .
Age: h{Ia§Q: ,' Goazv Bar;a:;a"8usiness
Rio Bai3hon_ga:.-- V   '  --~ .. RESPONDENTS

(By s::,v:swa§a:h S.ShVet{a-as A-3%.)

_ ‘_fhi§ ‘G?§mina1 R§§%’éEon Petition is filed under Section 39? read
‘-iwéiwh”€3.ect§Qn~éQ.1’*G_r.P.C, praying to set aside the order dt.18.4.2QQ5
pasaeé ‘ i:.y’»_thaf~Pr¥,Civii Judge (Jr’.E}n.) 8. Jfv’iFC., Bailhongai in

C.L’-.2,N’n§762L?£}94}:=

‘.44’?hié.éRé\%.i$ion Petition earning on fez Hearing this éay, the Csuyt

T ~ .~ 2. _ made thé fifiicwing:

% @2313
Yhis Revisicn Peiition Es fled by the State against the 9:33;’ of

V V ‘ .disc£1a:*ge gassed under Section 239 Cr,P.C.

Vtn.aVt e;éa

r
E’-J
x

2″ The resgoadents wem prosecuted far the offense punishabie
under Sections 1?, 32 S: 14 read sazith Sections 326$) arzé the

Kasnataica Excise Act,

3. The ailegatéon is that. the Excéaejfisuthoritéeg a_§ia’Ed»

or: 233 200:: at about 3 am in the hsuég eiitififezfjaésgeéecj—a’n§’tzgggmgthe ”

stack of Eiquor withcut Sécencek E2; th§s’\r_e§’ard, §:%:é;a;¢’;:i:seZ:! =we_:*t;»:.

presecuted. The acéuseei {fled an’uaS§§i§ca_tier2V’ss:ee{§{§r;1gé dézgcharge fmm
the offence on $12 gmur:{“:%§at f:§A'[E%’_éfifiiff5.gh§’¥?EiteF§aéVgfifléfitéfi by the
pmsecutéer: does not make 9&1: E;.:nde:’ the presziséens
of sections 4;, ¢.2i;;V;%m ri..— :§édg%:é§%h-$é;é:§o.n§_V:§3iv{1) and 33$: 9? the
Kagnaéaka

-4. V§«e1§ai:*2§&§:7é- _Szm§:e Pubiisz Prosecutaz sufsrmitkeé that

the Eea§ned’¥v%a}ig§s€r:aia §’§§”–a:;;jpV m¢édense”t9__£;eme ta ‘me concisgsion that fine evééerace is nai sasfiicient to

5: The erder imgagned ahsws that the raéd was made an

[V233 QQM, Awarding is tine panchanama, the téméags is mentianrsed as

145 am. an the said data, wzereas, in $.C,!\%e,’?G©!2§Q4E Ehe

éfii

-3-

::erra§§a%:”:aat reeeéved the information at aboazt M5 am’ on the said Q33:
am the inveatigaééon Grfficer aflesied iize acstsseé at 1,3G_4.a,§::.,’_ T*§¥1cugh

the effence is me. twin charge-sheets are fiéed §r2steac§__:§f”5o’ri::i.%;,:- it

is aiieged that am accused are tenants ef t?2e_.p.:e’%§f:%.s.;ésT..::: 4Hs*§;%7e~ge:f4,”‘~.._

except the ewrzer, no other gerstm is eixamirgéci; hépafich’v.g§3§§nAes55a$’–._

signatures are mt taken on evegy page ef the parg’::§xa¥r§Vai%’1aV’égfitbcefiat
the ens? of the same and their addréagege, %*esi:§eT{:cé1, aése fiat
fcrthcsmiag. The éearned *!¥~’¥§ gisiféié ‘$§§g§§§e§ia§ §E§’ée “£:3a§ er§a§ eofiecteé
by flue prosecuticn foamd t§sait:_L-vn*;’£a§e:i_%§L’V§–$é_’.:::vé§t_~__suffic§en: ta gyoseed
agairsai the accgse§ gnd make eat an efierace

pursishabée u::”:’7<':é'r'_a_$%;%§:;§:€s«.}; r:__Q' read witéz Sectiang 32(1) am

am; er%:::ekT§<g;m&ata:iea Exciéefscii « % .

6:””‘_¥;’h’%9.’_Ee’2z-s*’:’;V§e%.¥.” éghe had the benefit as the maieréai

ceiiected b3§VV’t§:«n,§% p:rt>$’e{;:;ii::§:;« ?éCas cansideied the entire mateyiai am has

V. «_ §our§:§~;;ha§A’ihieV enéirte .ma_tes§aé acres not prima facie make saw: a case is

;:>§f:;€5€*€?:V£§d..;aAug1’a,E§’:¥.§*:gi”‘*i?3__19 accused. The Magistrate has jufiiciausiy exercised

h§s ‘g’.–x=owé? faasnd that the materiaf is §nsu§fic¥en€ ta proceed

V _ aga§é’é~;=:st t%n.é .a’a::c7’used. I find my reason is interfere with the same,

” * , ” = _He%’:¢e, the Féevisicn Pezszsoa faéis and :5 dismissed.

1′ KNM11 _ Sd/3

Judy?