Karnataka High Court
Linganagouda S/O Babagouda Patil vs The Authorised Officer And Deputy ... on 10 June, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
.3'.
IN THE HIGH COURT 0%' KARNATAKA. 3 A A' CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWADV 'jg, L. DATED THIS THE 1011; " ' V BEFGREJ %* M THE HONBLE MR.JUSéj_cE_ N.ANA1 v'B}'a CRIMINAL REVISMN PE.'" fif:fIé}1§z ,i5¥o.g58IQé0é BETWEEN:
- &AmDa%LjA:% Linganagouda, S1,' _:Ba;£i V Aged abraiitfifi Qccz. Agriculture, Rio: Kzimbataksppg. Vi}3age',- -- Tq: 85 Difit; Ddhanvaci} ...P&Ti'CiQ31€r (By Sri SriE{é1+$hvA.Vfi¢é¢Vic~15mi, Advocate) 'Oficer and I3{:;m_*:yf Gqngerifatar of Forest, D1:1a1w'ad E§i'a5'i$irfin, Dhaiwad. ...Resp<m&cnt 3 (By 3}: P.'H,C:z$tkhm' xii, HCGP) x 'T *'~§'his petition is filed under section 39'? Cr. P. 0., praying io_ %£'~'aside the judgment dated 30.11200? passeci in ___"'"C.ri,A.No.'?4/2907 on the file of ?r1.Scss:ions Judge, This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made: the following:
0 R D E R The matter is listed for admiesiené. k V' records are received. Therefore, V Counsel far parties, it is taken 'f-qr
2. The petifioncr was th¢.V-1=c§gi§:té'ra:;i ots.rfifierA. of§t1'act0r tcafl er bcarm g No.KA25/'I;}'5.?;'}_,55 V:I§'o£est oficials of Aravatgi Village ithé' ' ;was used for 1og:*'rV.smf1v*c)111 the Range 13'orcst cxf Kaiakeri. The' an application for return of the vehigle this siutiidfised omccr, who after hoiding ;§1i:;s;z1isseci'Vapp1icai"ion. The petitioner was "1Li5.'I3.Sv1.'I:'(§3"x','f;Su':"L'~f:'i..1;z¥::v4ii'i::vCI1.A.NO.74/ 2007. Thercfcore, petitioner is before "tI1i$ V x Zhava heard Sri Sriharsh Neelopant, laearneci « for petifiexmr and the leazried Government Advocate f9r__§;he State. I have been taken thmugh the records.
4. The petitioner has disputed involvement of his vehicle in the commission of the aforcsaié afiences. it is mfi L'_.'/'\/\v--'6L\.~i comsnded by the petitioner that whefi"11,bi_s " "
has} been parked in Event of his h<:;i:;.se,;"t;t1;: F'<>_1%2${' 9mm;g%[% fercibiy seized the same.
5. The authorisc':d_ cofiéficmixion of improbable evidence five}; as DW.1) and witnesses 'mag; Tafiétagi has held that the his vehicle was not Wooden iogs from Kala.gen'c3m:";fA: .V oficcr has accepted the evidence of forest PW.1--Ash.ok Ganapaiti, {me V Witnc§§§'for.scizufe has fumes} hostile. V 6, ofler relying on a judgment sf this 1937(2) Kar.L.J. 2?8 {in the case of ' Rameéh Vs. Stat: of Karnataka) has heid that the "}§€fitE{§13:'&f inas faiiaeci 1:0 pmve that he has?! taken ail care and Lfifieessmy Pfflcautiens against misuse of his "'«.V;§rél.éic1c and the ofiiznces were committczf without his ' knowlcégtt or connivance. %, < JV... pa---«--0L«, :4:
7. in the appeal, the icamcd Sessismsj:Judé3':.?:"'d:;_"' V' zeappreciation of evidence has confirmed. the the autitxcariscd omcer.
8. The leazmed Counsel f."V0\i'.:::'I<'.ti'£iOI:1'(33T_ I. There: is non--oo3fi;::i§$11if:£: c.=f_ 62(3) of the Kmfifiiéka "seizure of the v£:.i*1iicie;?f1':1:_::.c£}13.§:r;VI':1t:gi have not put the II. '« turned hostile.
Thii €fll2€h.Qzi:--sed oificer ought not to have mfiicd _ A L1§«:>.t1 the evifience of forest eficiais who were ' .vihf§:'ssteé in success of case by them. 4433}: '"iv'};1e }:é3.rned Govemmexst Advocate would jusfifyr the V V' 'iniip'u@ed" oréer, 3.0. In View of C{)I1C1}1:'};'!ii1'L}.t finéings, it is nrzctassary tr) u refer to the eiecisian reparted in Am 1999 SC. 98}, wherein .5 4 .\.-~ Ocn 4 the Supreme Court has htzlxi, TV '" F' "In. its revisional jurisdiciion, the' V ' ' call for and examine pmceefiings for the purpose of "as ' 1:0 {he crvarrtzcmess, lcgafl3;fVox pxfxprietyiqf findings, sentence er o1j(:_1:ér.. _But revisionai mwer bit-,t witfi fihe power of an Appeiiaiéé treated even as _-3* _ seco:t:i.{i" * .§i?i:isdiction. <)m1snari2:;, §¢Tou:'d. z;c+§ baappmpxaate for the? the evidence agzxd {')'i3'i:«fI1-.'C{'}'I'I.(31?;2.':'§"Ji0I,1 on the same Whgn been appreciated byfgiag Pdagisfififiééiéas the Sessions Judge inappé&!."" _ AA V' of the concerned officials to put the vehicle, it is necessary to state that it is5':g§it in all cases. This is the vjrzw taken by this 'Qourt in Jfhe case of Ayaz Ahmeé Vs. State of Karnataka in {LR 1989 KAR. 53?.
12. It is true that P'W.1, one of the pariah Witness W110 "itgad attested the panchanama regarciing seizure of the vehicle has not supportcd the cast: of prosecufion. For this reason, tha evidence {If other Witnesses cannot be discarded. TV. VVV" 61'" I
13. The evidence of DW.1, " V' inconsistent. Petitioner would say 1:151} vehicle in front of his house was" airay by forest oficials. In 1316" next 'h_<: W¥t}i1icT£ $';a§{,i§that he had hired his vehicle 9£f; -i;1:._u§z .;11e: purpose of ttransporting gxass, The would say that the trailer which had been crf petitioner during the a1)s4§ff:'1'fi:"t:;V '_éf _ V authorised omccr has found and imzredibie and rrzjectagi. the d'E:f'<az_;:1ct:..s}*t2rSio1i: : The petifioncr has not adduced V'e*zide;t{1;§:t zitc; show tiiat"'hLé: had taken pmcaution to prevent and he had €1C1tI'l1$12€€1 the vehicle to the éonficlence and the vehicle was misused 4' ':v_ith0u§ kzfiowicdge and connivance. Thczefort, I do not grounds to interfere with the impugneé order. __ "«§§cCL}1'di11gly, petition is dismissed. Sd/1;
Judge $ts*