- 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.