ORDER
M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.
1. Both cases involve common questions of law and common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. These revision petitions filed by the State under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. are directed against the judgments dated 27-3-2001 and 7-4-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Marigalore, in Cri. A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1998, respectively, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the orders of confiscation dated 14-12-1997 and 24-12-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer in Nos. SDK/DTCR/135/91-92 and SDK/DTCK/271/92-93, respectively, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgments impugned.
2-A. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Karnataka and Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
3. In both these cases, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the order of acquittal in a criminal case for the offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act has anything to do so far as confiscation proceedings are concerned.
4. The learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgments impugned are illegal and improper. The learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified in arriving at the said conclusion. The learned Government Pleader also contends that the statutory provisions in this regard are clear and the learned Sessions Judge had not examined the material on record in the right perspective. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petitions.
5. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for respondents strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the judgments impugned are legal and proper. The learned Sessions Judge had considered the facts in issue in the right perspective and had arrived at the right conclusion. The material on record clearly shows that the accused had been acquitted in the criminal cases and the same will have a bearing on the merits of the instant cases also. There are absolutely no grounds made out by the State to interfere with the judgments impugned. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
6. The Court has carefully perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar.
7. From the material on record, it is seen that the accused had been prosecuted in both these cases for the commission of the offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act and the learned Magistrate had recorded a finding of acquittal. This aspect had been brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge had relied upon a decision of this Court in Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bagalkot v. Ramakrishnappa Kedarba Urankar, 1997(3) Kar. L.J. 304 : 1997 Cri. L.J. 4695 (Kar.) and had allowed the appeals and thereby set aside the orders of confiscation of the properties concerned in both the cases.
8. At this stage, it is necessary to quote a part of the provisions of Section 43-A(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, which runs as under:
“(2) On production of the seized property under Sub-section (1), the Authorised Officer, if satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property”.
On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the Authorised Officer is required to be satisfied that an offence under the Karnataka Excise Act had been committed irrespective of the fact whether the prosecution had been instituted against the accused or not. This statutory provision also makes it clear that the Authorised Officer is required to satisfy himself independently. It is a settled principle of law that the Courts of law will have to administer justice strictly in accordance with law and interpret the law keeping in mind the intention of the Legislature and cannot afford to legislate. From the said provision, it is clear that the decision on the part of the Authorised Officer is independent in nature. In other words, it makes it clear that the judgment of acquittal passed by a Criminal Court has no relevance in confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act.
9. It is also pertinent to mention a judgment of the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has held that the prosecution under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and the confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act are separate and distinct.
10. It is also pertinent to mention that the Karnataka Excise Act also contains a similar provision as that of the Karnataka Forest Act, In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases and the settled law under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and the Karnataka Excise Act, the ratio laid down in the said decision can be pressed into service in this regard.
11. It is also brought to the notice of the Court an unreported decision of this Court rendered on 8-9-2003 in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Annayya, 2004(3) Kar. L.J. 429 wherein this Court had also expressed the similar view, while dealing with a case under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act.
12. The discussion supra, clearly goes to show that the confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer are separate and distinct and as such the judgment of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court will have absolutely no bearing on the confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer.
13. On careful perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge had disposed of both the appeals only on this aspect. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge had not considered the cases of the parties on other aspects. Under these circumstances, it would be in the ends of justice, if the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the matters are remitted to him to consider the cases afresh after hearing both sides and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petitions are allowed. The judgments impugned are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to here both sides on all the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeals, excepting this aspect, and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
