- 1 -
CRL.P No. 101217 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. 101217 OF 2017 (482)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMCHANDRAGOUDA PANDURANGAPPA ITGOWNI
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. NAGALINGESHWAR COLONY
CHIKODI, DISTEICT:BELAGAVI
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE, THROUGH RAIBAH POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 399
OF 2015 BY THE RAIBAG POLICE STATION IN C.C.NO. 615 OF 2016
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JMFC RAIBAG INSOFAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 32, 34, 41 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965.
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
Location: High court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 101217 of 2017
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard leaned counsel, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli 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 proceedings in Crime No. 399 of
2015 by the Raibag Police Station in C.C.No. 615 of
2016 on the file of the Prl. JMFC Raibag insofar as the
petitioner is 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:
Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 32, 34 and 41 of the Karnataka
Excise Act 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 information stating that in a Dhaba near
Bendawad Cross one person has indulged in sale of liquor.
On credible information, head of the raid party along with
- 3 -
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 Shivaraj S Balloli, leaned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently contended that in the absence of any
incriminatory materials found against accused No.2, he
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
- 4 -
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 near Bendawad
Cross, where he was found selling the liquor sachets kept
in a hand 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 raid were in fact supplied by accused
No.2 from the Eriswami Wine Shop, Kabbur. 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 petitioner’s shop or belongs to
- 5 -
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 rendered by 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:
"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."
- 6 -
11.
Having re
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.