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

AKKALAPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 357/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.357 OF 2021

BETWEEN

AKKALAPPA

S/O. MARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

RESIDING AT D. SAJJUPALLI VILLAGE,

CHELUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK 3 561 207,

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHETHAN A.C., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY BAGEPALLI EXCISE POLICE,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

PRAYING

TO

SET

ASIDE

THE

JUDGMENT OF THE

THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DATED 24.09.2019 IN

CRL.A.NO.10/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BAGEPALLI,

DATED 05.01.2015 IN C.C. NO.338/2013 CONVICTING THE

2

PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTIONS 32 AND 34 OF THE

KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF

THE TRIAL COURT.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN

HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.08.2021 AND

COMING ON FOR PRONOUCEMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioner-accused against the concurrent findings of the

Courts below convicting him for the offences punishable

under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act,

1965

and

sentencing

him

to

undergo

rigorous

imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for two months for the offence punishable under Section

32 of the Karnataka Excise Act; and further sentencing him

to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine

of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment

for two months for the offence punishable under Section

34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

3

2.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.04.2013,

PW.2-Nagaraja Shetty, the Election Officer was posted for

Karnataka Assembly Election duty of 2013. When he was

proceeding near G. Maddepalli cross, Bagepalli Taluk, he

found the accused carrying the alcohol illegally in a yellow

colour plastic bag. Immediately, he apprehended him in

the presence of PW.4-Excise Guard and PW.5-Home Guard

and on verification of the bag, found him in possession of

34 Highwards Beer Cheer Whisky of tetra packets of 180

ML each and 10 Knockout Punch Beer bottles of 330 ML

each. Immediately, PW-2 informed PW.6 i.e., Excise

Inspector of Bagepalli to come and seize the articles.

Subsequently, on 11.45 p.m., PW.6 came to the spot and

seized the articles in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. After

registering the case, further investigation was conducted

by PW.3 and charge sheet came to be filed and the

4

accused was released on bail. The charges were framed

against the accused, but he pleaded not guilty. In order to

prove the same, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses,

got marked 9 documents and 6 material objects. After the

completion of evidence, the statement of accused under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The case of the

accused was one of total denial, but not lead any defence

evidence. After hearing the arguments, learned Magistrate

convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment as stated above. The same was challenged

before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal

No.10/2015. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the

appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed

by the Trial Court. Hence, the accused is before this

Court.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner/accused

vehemently argued mainly on three grounds i.e, the

accused is said to be apprehended by PW.2. Imm

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top