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) 45008

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 101835 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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101835 OF 2022 (482)

BETWEEN:

PRABHU S/O NAGAPPA BABLI,

AGE: 43 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESSMEN,

R/O.DEVI BAR,

NEAR FCI GODOWN,

TQ: KOPPAL, DIST.KOPPAL-588321.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANOJ B. & SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH,

AT DHARWAD, (THROUGH KOPPAL RURAL

POLICE STATION).

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED 24.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL

CIVIL

JUDGE

AND

JMFC,

KOPPAL

AT

KOPPAL

IN

C.C.NO.1353/2020 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTION 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965, IN CRIME

NO.135/2020 REGISTERED BY THE KOPPAL RURAL POLICE

STATION FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 34

Digitally

signed by

ANNAPURNA

CHINNAPPA

DANDAGAL

Location:

HIGH COURT

OF

KARNATAKA

DHARWAD

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 101835 of 2022

OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965, BY ALLOWING THE

CRIMINAL PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Heard leaned counsel, Sri Manoj B., 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 quash the impugned order dated

24.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Civil

Judge

and

Koppal

at

Koppal

in

C.C.No.1353/2020 for an offence punishable

under Section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965,

in Crime No.135/2020 registered by the Koppal

Rural Police Station for an offence punishable u/s

34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, by allowing the

criminal petition.=

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence

punishable under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act

and summons have been issued and the same is under

- 3 -

challenge. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that

when the complainant was on duty, he received credible

information stating that on 26.06.2020 at about 2.00 p.m.

in Halvarthi village near Dabha owned by one Manjunath

Karadiguddat in a public place, some person were

indulged in sale of liquor. 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.1

in the charge sheet. Further, the police investigated and

based on the information collected by the police, accused

No.2 has also been arraigned as additional accused in the

case and he has also been charge sheeted. The action of

the police is challenged in the present petition.

4.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

Sri

Manoj

B.,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

vehemently contended that in the absence of any

incriminatory materials found against accused No.2, he

- 4 -

has been falsely implicated by the police in order to harass

him 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.1, where he was found

selling the liquor sachets kept in box. 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 raid were in fact

supplied by accused No.2 from the Devi Wine Shop,

- 5 -

Kavalur. 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,

t

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