Karnataka High Court
Mr Suman Basak vs Inspector Of Excise on 8 February, 2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.79 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Mr.Suman Basak,
S/o Basak,
Aged about years,
R/a Flat No.33/202,
Manthri Residency,
Bannergatta Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.V.S.Biju, Advocate)
AND:
Inspector of Excise,
Ashok Nagar Range,
Bangalore - 560 006.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Satish R.Girji, GP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.868/11 on the file of the MMTC
Court-1, Bangalore (vide Annexure-1) which are
initiated in pursuance of the split up charge sheet (vide
Annexure-II) filed by the respondent police for the
offences under Sections 11, 13 and 14 of Karnataka
Excise Act.
:2:
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, on
this day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing the prosecution launched against him on the file of MMTC Court-1, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 13 and 14 of Karnataka Excise Act interalia contending that a false case has been registered against him though he has not committed any offence and the jurisdictional Magistrate has registered a spilt-up charge sheet against the petitioner and since the main accused arrayed as accused No.1 has already been acquitted by the Court, no useful purpose will be served by pursuing the prosecution against the petitioner who had sold the car in question much prior to the date of the incident and thereby ceased to be the owner of the said car.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records and other documents produced.
:3:
3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.11.2010, a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No.O.R.02.L-1864 was intercepted on a credible information that illegal liquor is being transported in the said vehicle and after search of the said car, it was found transporting 24 ltrs. of foreign liquor and 12 ltrs. of Indian liquor without payment of excise duty. Therefore, the liquor as well as the car came to be seized. Investigation revealed that at the time of seizure accused No.1 was driving the car and this petitioner was the registered owner of the said car. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.868/11 against accused No.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.
4. It appears that pursuant to summons petitioner did not appear before the Court nor his presence could be secured inspite of issue of warrants. As even according to the petitioner, he was deputed by his employer to USA and he was in USA from 2005 till date. Therefore, the learned Magistrate directed for splitting up of the charge sheet. Accordingly, split up :4: charge sheet in C.C.No.868/11 came to be registered against this petitioner and case in C.C.No.678/11 was proceeded against accused No.1. Of course, the accused No.1, after full-fledged trial, came to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. In the meanwhile, petitioner on coming to know of the registration of the split up charge sheet against him appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate and was released on bail.
5. There is no irregularity committed by the learned Magistrate in splitting up of the charge sheet. When this petitioner did not appear before the Court pursuant to summons and warrant and since the learned Magistrate exhausted all the procedures laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, had no option but to order splitting up of the charge sheet against this petitioner. Therefore, no error of law is committed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in registering the split up charge sheet against this petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he was not the owner of the car as on the date of the alleged incident and that he had sold the :5: same long prior to the alleged date of the incident are all questions of fact which are required to be established at the trial of the case. Merely because the accused No.1 has been acquitted, the prosecution against this petitioner cannot be quashed.
6. In this view of matter, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Prs*