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. 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

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