IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the legislative intention to impose a bank guarantee under the Karnataka Excise Act should be protected, and the discretionary power of the courts should be exercised judiciously.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the State seeking to set aside the order dated 13.11.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.71/2020 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, wherein the Appellate Court modified and set aside the Bank Guarantee imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise by his order dated 01.10.2020 while releasing the I-20 Car bearing No.K-11- N-2893 directing the owner of the vehicle to furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that, on 17.05.2020 at about 5.00 p.m., near Golden Traders situated at K.M.Doddi Town, Mandya District, on credible information received by the complainant - the Excise Inspector of Maddur Zone intercepted the vehicle and found that the said vehicle was carrying 69.120 liters of liquor. Case has been registered against the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was seized and confiscation proceeding was held by the Deputy commissioner of exercise.

3. The owner of the said vehicle filed necessary application before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise seeking release of the said vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 01.10.2020 passed an order to release the vehicle by taking the Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the Authority. The petitioner/owner being aggrieved by the said order has preferred an appeal stating that the said order of imposition of Bank Guarantee is unreasonable and unsustainable and hence, he sought to set aside the Bank Guarantee and further sought modification of the order.

4. The State represented by learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed before the Appellate Court by filing detailed objections. However, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and modified the order. In the said order, the Appellate Court ordered the appellant to execute indemnity bond instead of bank guarantee. The State being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Court, preferred this Revision petition seeking to set – aside the order passed by the Appellate Court.

5. Heard Sri.Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of State/petitioner and Sri.Hariprasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned HCGP that the Karnataka Excise Act stipulated conditions while releasing the vehicle, wherein imposition of Bank Guarantee to release the seized vehicle is also one of such conditions which has been statutorily recognized under the Act.

7. The Learned HCGP further submits that, the scope and ambit of the provision should be protected while exercising the discretionary power. The power exercised by the Appellate Court is arbitrary and without application of mind, hence, it is liable to set – aside.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the Appellate Court being a Sessions Court rightly exercised the discretionary power and modified the condition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the order passed by the Appellate Court contains no illegality, perversity; hence, interference by this Court is not warranted. Thus, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.

9. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 and K.Ravindra Malya v. State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR Kant R 2977.

10. After having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the questions which arise for my consideration are,

1. Is there any illegality, perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Court?

2. Whether the petitioner made out grounds to interfere with the said order?

11. Before adverting to the other facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the provisions under Section 43-A(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act which reads as under:

“43-A(2). On production of the seized property under sub-section (1), the authoris