""fiQsay@£lapun,
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATES THIS THE 16m'nAY 0? JULY fi$d§{.] ?Vi
BEFORE W__ K . u
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:cE_A.s.éACHHA§UREf...a.
CRIMINAL REVISION PET:TION fic.196§_9§JéUO5
BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka, _
Rep. By Public Prosecutor." ,g_ .._*
Dharwad. .m=, % g €.f W.".fl., j M PETITIONER/S
AND:
Age: 36 ye&rs;_ _
Occ: Auto Drivgr,_3
R/0. Walmiki Oni,&
Ashok Yahanappa'Aiޣ, "~i
°,Dhja;wad;.'_'»_ M RESPDNEENT/S
{ByaSri:.M§@éfiméhan M.Kannur, Adv.)
~k~:le~lr
This 30:1. Revision Petition is filed under
,_ Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. by the SP? for the State,
«praying to set aside the Order dt. 18.7.2005 passed by
', .thé«Prl.S.J., Dharwad, in Crl.A. No.4/2905 and Order
"v,dt. §23.12.2GO4, passed by the By. Commissioner of
'*.V ,EXCise and A.O., in No.Exe/Con/26:2000-O1, dt.
"«_ 23.12.2004.
This Crl. Revision Petition coming on for Final
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This revision by” the State is direotedideqeinst
the Judgment and Order of the Prl. “Sessions :ueg§;_
Dharwad, in Crl.A. No.4/2005, setting asidexthe orden_’w
of the Deputy Commissionerita confisoatin§*i the A
autoriokshaw owned by the res§ondent,l>V” xvi it t
2. The facts.reievant ion the nurpose of this
revision are as under:
The ;esA;3iojnd;$-‘én«t ‘i:s’u_the_’ owner of the autorickshaw
bearing A’P.eq._ z4o’.’I<3i~–2'5,!§ii;4«2"367. On 18.03.2001 at about
10 p,m,. thei seidi-antorickshaw was driven by one
itflri;Chandrashekar§ """ "i The PSi., Dharwad Town Police
tetopned the autorickshaw and found a passenger by name
nhottiea;W;Qhioh was being transported without any
ipe;mi:Ǥ} authority. The autorickshaw and the liquor
-fwere seized and thereafter an investigation was held
nfiand the charge sheet was filed against the driver and
[also the passenger. The Deputy Commissioner, who is
Eshweri Ainritxwho possessed a bag containing liquor
the Authorised Officer, issued a show~cause netice te
the respondent herein, calling upon him to shee¥eeuse
as te why the autorickshaw should not fie ééfigiéeaied
to the State. The respondent herein épeeered eerdrép,
the Deputy Cemmissioner and centendedfltnet he ted n§*.5
knowledge of the driver’ er dine Vpaeeeneerirneving
indulged in the transportatien of thevtiqnorg
During the enqniry, lthew Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined, decumente Exs.R1 te 3 were marked and
after hearing} the Deputy Cemmiesioner Vide his Order
dated 23.12r2Q¢4i eonfieceted the autorickshaw of the
respondent_nereinf_ Afigrieved by the said Order, the
respondent *p;eret:ed r§fi* appeal in Crl.A. No.4/2065
before ,the iPri;-tseesiens Judge and the said appeal
iicameflteybe*eiiowed”end the Order of confiscation was
inetVeside€tnAdgrieved by the Judgment and Order of the
“q”§er the eetitioner and also the learned counsel for
i3: define reepondent. Bgigwm
Seesiens Cdurt} the State has preferred this revision.
3, trf have heard the learned Government Pleader
/,
4. The perusai of the evidence of P.Ws.i and 2
does not reveal anything as regards the knowledge of
the owner of the autorickshaw about the tranégortatien
of the liquor either by the passenger or the driver oft”
the autoriokshaw. The learhedyvErihoioé}hhSesSionsi”
Judge on going through the eyidenoe of the yitneesee,
concluded that the witne§ees_ hefiej not’ whieoered
anything about the ‘iiouotdmheihgfldtrensoorted in the
autorickshaw, with thet hnofiiedge hot »the registered
owner. In the ehsenee of the knofiiedge of the owner
regarding the “trenspo£tetiog” of’ the liquor in his
autorickShéw,i
;heRhoennot- be “heid responsible and the
autoriokshefi ‘cannot *hegioonfiscated. It. is in that
view of the hatter that the iearned Qrinoipai Sessions
._Judg§@§;lowed the eppeal of the respondent by setting
‘(aside the confiscation. I do not find any error or
iileoalit$W__ihd the Order impugned. In the
V_circumstanoeé, the petition is devoid of merits and it
dhwie.dismiseed accordingly.
Std/~
Iudgé
Ksm*