SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 52032

- 1 -

WP No. 101830 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 101830 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

B.NAGAVENI W/O B.NAGARAJA,

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

R/O NO.327 DURUGAMMA SEDA BHAVI BADAVANE

SHIVAPURA KUDLIGI,

DIST. BALLARI-583135,

AS PER CHARGE SHEET

AT DOOR NO.1043 WARD NO.2 HALALU VILLAGE,

TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH HIREHADAGALI POLICE STATION,

DISTRICT BALLARI-5831040,

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION

482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND

QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.73/2020 ON THE FILE

OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT

Digitally

signed by

ANNAPURNA

CHINNAPPA

DANDAGAL

Location:

DHARWAD

- 2 -

WP No. 101830 of 2022

HADAGALI (CRIME NO.198/2018 OF HIREHADAGALI POLICE

STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTION 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, VIDE

ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

Heard leaned counsel, Sri Srinivas B.Naik for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent-State.

2.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.

<To issue a writ of certiorari, and quash the

charge sheet in C.C.No.73/2020 on the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court

Hadagali (Crime No.198/2018 of Hirehadagali

Police

Station)

registered

for

the

offence

punishable under Section 32 and 34 of Karnataka

Excise Act, vide Annexure-C, in the interest of

justice and equity.=

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence

punishable under Section 32 and 34 of the Karnataka

- 3 -

Excise Act, 1965 and summons have been issued and the

same is under challenge. The gist of the complaint

averments reveal that when the complainant was on duty,

he received credible information as to illegal selling of

liquor near Mallige Dhaba. On credible information, head

of the raid party along with panch witnesses went to the

spot and were on watch and on confirmation, raided and

captured the person who was indulged in selling of the

liquor sachets illegally and he is arraigned as accused No.2

in the charge sheet. Further, the police investigated and

based on the information collected by the police, accused

No.1 and 3 have also been arraigned as additional accused

in the case and they have been charge sheeted. The

action of the police is challenged in the present petition.

4.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

Sri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently contended that in the absence of any

incriminatory materials found against accused No.2, she

- 4 -

has been falsely implicated by the police in order to harass

her and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader submits that, in the charge sheet materials

necessary

information

has

been

gathered

by

the

investigating agency to establish nexus between the

petitioner and the incident and therefore, sought for

dismissal of the petition.

6.

Perused the material on record meticulously, in

the light of rival contentions of the parties.

7.

Admittedly on the day of the raid, the police

were only able to catch accused No.2, where she was

found selling the liquor sachets kept in bag. Subsequent

thereto, the police investigated the matter and filed

charge sheet against the present petitioner also. The

charge sheet materials do not indicate that, the liquor

sachets seized by the head of the raid party on the date of

- 5 -

raid were in fact supplied by accused. No other material is

forthcoming so as to proceed against the petitioner.

8.

The investigation agency has not collected any

material to establish that the sold liquor packets are

actually purchased from petitioner9s shop or belongs to

petitioner. Under such circumstances, in the absence of

nexus, criminal action is impermissible.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed

reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court dated 02.07.2020 passed in Crl.P.No.100827/2019

and connected matters. In the said case, Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court has referred to other judgments of Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.10, 11 and

13 of its judgment. For ready reference paragraph Nos.10,

11 and 13 are extracted hereunder.

<10. In a decision reported in (2013) 1

KCCR 334 case of K.Ramachandra Reddy Vs.

State of Karnataka by the Station House

Officer & Another, it is observed as under:

- 6 -

"23. The position in law will have to be

referred to at this juncture. This Court, in the

case M/s. Vijaya Bank Vs. State by the Labour

Enforcement Officer, reported in ILR 2000

Karnataka

4773,

has

held

that

taking

cognizance of an offence being a judicial act

after

application

of

kind,

the

Magistrate

Proforma" should in which not even use the

"printed words "Cognizance is taken, are also

printed or typed."

11.

Having regard to the submission made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top