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

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 101218 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

BENCH

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101218 OF 2017 (482-)

BETWEEN:

1.

SRI. VITTHALPRASAD RAMCHANDRA ITGOWNI

AGE:MAJOR,OCC BUSINESS, R/O. CHIKODI

DISTRICT:BELAGAVI

2.

SRI APPASAHEB GURUSIDAPPA CHUNMURE

AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS

KIRTI BAR MUGOLKHOD

R/O. MUGALKHOD

RAIBAG TALUKA

BELAGAVI DISTRICT

CURRENTLY RESIDING AT ANANTPUR

ATHANI TALUKA

BELAGAVI DISTRICT

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE, THROUGH RAIBAG POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

Digitally signed

by

ANNAPURNA

CHINNAPPA

DANDAGAL

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

DHARWAD

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 101218 of 2017

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 390

OF 2015 BY THE RAIBAG POLICE STATION IN C.C.NO. 415 OF 2016

ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JMFC RAIBAG INSOFAR AS THE

PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 32, 34, 41 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Heard leaned counsel, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli for the

petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent-State.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.

“To quash the proceedings in Crime No. 390

of 2015 by the Raibag Police Station in C.C.No. 415

of 2016 on the file of the Prl. JMFC Raibag insofar

as the petitioners are concerned for the offences

punishable under Sections 32, 34, 41 of the

Karnataka Excise Act 1965.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioners have been charge sheeted for the

offences punishable under Sections 32, 34 and 41 of the

Karnataka Excise Act and summons have been issued and

- 3 -

the same is under challenge. The gist of the complaint

averments reveal that when the complainant was on duty,

beat officials of Itnal village came and informed that near

Sangolli Rayanna Circle, Itnal village, one person has

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

Nos.2 and 3 have also been arraigned as additional

accused in the case and they have also been charge

sheeted. The action of the police is challenged in the

present petition.

4.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

Sri Shivaraj S Balloli, leaned counsel for the petitioners

vehemently contended that in the absence of any

- 4 -

incriminatory materials found against accused Nos.2 and

3, they have been falsely implicated by the police in order

to harass them 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

petitioners 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 apprehend accused No.1 near Sangolli

Rayanna circle, Itnal village, where he was found selling

the liquor sachets kept in a hand bag. Subsequent

thereto, the police investigated the matter and filed

- 5 -

charge sheet against the present petitioners 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 Nos.2 and 3 from

Keerti Bar, Mugalkhod. No other material is forthcoming

so as to proceed against the petitioners.

8.

The investigation agency has not collected any

material to establish that the sold liquor packets are

actually purchased from petitioners’ shop or belongs to

petitioners. Under such circumstances, in the absence of

nexus, criminal action is impermissible.

9.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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

- 6 -

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:

"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

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