IN THE HIGH COURT OF RARNAIRRA AI BANGALORE
DATED IHIs THE 10" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009
BEFORE: T T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. RAcHHHRORRl"tlft'
CRIMINAL REVISION REIIIION N5;2363 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
State by Inspector Of Excise}Il.
Excise Intelligence Wing, "" V
Mangalore. PETITIONER/S
{By srI.B.BaIakrIshnaI'HCOR.j '*'
AND:
Udaya Anchanyj. I . »_ §
S/O. Rukmayya'P§Ojary;_°
POOjarY'Nilaya,V"l' "a'V *
SOOrikumeIg;IV "
Berimar Post,' _ '
Bantfialnfalukflufl I RESPONDENT/S
l§RespOnflent,served & absent]
'k'Jr$k'
This Crl.R.P. is filed u/Section 397 r/w 401
'.Cr.P,C. 'by the SP? for the State praying' tO set
_ "ssidef the Order dt.2.9.06 passedt by the Prl.S.J.,
_yD;K{; Bangalore in Crl.A. No.91/O3 and confirm the
_ "Order passed by the Authorized Office/Deputy
.R'COmmissiOner Of Excise, Mangaiore in ADK
*»8I3/DIOR/I997-98 dt.30.lO.G3.
?his Crl.R.P. coming On for Hearing On E.A. on
this day, the court msde the following:
2 Crl.RP 2363/O6
ORDER
Though the matter is posted for_ hearing; on
I.A., with the consent of the counsel, it is,takenix
up for final disposal.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this’
revision are as under:
:1; is on p.m., the
Excise Inspector,!HWgEangai§;§; ;i had credible
information”uhen he fias patroiling duty near Nanthur
cross, ,gawiifiaruth;ii¢ari bearing reg. No.CRX 3087
proceeding on the Highefiay and he chased the car for
about 20d%hmrsi, fleet ahead and stopped the same.
There Were two oersons in the said car including the
respondent herein and on search of the vehicle, he
foundiggfgartons, each containing 48 bottles of 180
._ ml. aBoss. Whisky, totaling 1152 bottles. The
“*_respondent and another person had no license or any
“‘ authority to possess the said liquor. In the
i”= circumstances, he registered the crime against the
irespondent and another, held the investigation and
filed the charge in C.C. No.26097/1997 in the court
of JMFC IE1, Mangalore. géixw
.-3»
3 Crl.RP 2363/O6
Inc the parallel proceedings for confiscation,
the Authorized Officer issued the notice, continued
the proceedings and recorded the evidence ofFthex4
witnesses and on the basis of the said fmateriall.
confiscated the said Maruthi van;. aggrieved hp then
said order, the respondent approached the Sessions
Court in Crl.A. No.91/20d3©agg the said éfipeal came’
to be allowed by the learned Sessions*Judge on the
ground that the respondent heieinlnho was one of the
accused in C.C: §o.26U9§{l$9f has heen acquitted of
the charge 55; the Qiiigce g¢deg”s¢c:ions ii and 14
r/w. 3$y*3% énfiflaeznflaf the Karnataka Excise Act.
So also no independent witnesses had supported the
seizure of the liquor and it is on this ground that
__ the,learned sessions Judge allowed the appeal and
d:_set,aside–the Order of confiscation. Aggrieved by
the said Qragr; this revision has been preferred by
the”State;w°
l*3. I have heard the learned Government
‘fPieader for the petitioner. Yhe respondent though
lg served is absent.
4. It is relevant to note that for the
offences punishable under Sections 11 ands 14 r/w
4 Crl.RP 2363/06
32, 34 and 38wA of the Karnataka Excise Act, a
charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent
herein in c.c. No.26097/1997 before the
Court), Mangalore and in the said ‘case: the”
prosecution. led the evidence. p’On”«appreciationmfof*
the material on record, the learned fiagistrate has;
acquitted the accused on th§ ground that there is
insufficient evidence for use of-the vehicle for the
purpose of transportingi the iliguoiipxr The learned
Magistrate had =-alsoF””ohserved ijthat attesting
witnesses for_ the’ seizure_ mahazar did, not support
the seizure, and Qno” independent witnesses were
examined by the Investigating Officer to prove the
seizure. u&Q, _it_ is ,on these grounds that the
_learned Sessions Judge proceeded to allow the appeal
‘by,setting.aside the Order of confiscation. in my
considered Vopinion, the Order of the learned
Sessions Judge is just and proper and as this is a
” revision, the scope is limited and there cannot be
re¥appreciation of the evidence except on the ground
i”ofw_any illegality or perversity in the Order
R’~ifipugned, fhe Sate has not made any grounds to
warrant interference. Hence, E proceed to pass the
following. Cxiai
Ksm*
5 Crl.RP 2363/O6
ORDER
The revision petition is dismis§efi\w- .*
‘.2