Bangalore District Court
State By Parappana Agrahara Police vs For The Offence Punishable Under ... on 25 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 25th day of May 2015
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 11291/2011
2.Date of Offence 13-4-2013
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station
4.Accused Nagaraju S/o Krishnappa,
aged 38 years, No.107,
Ambedkarnagar, Koodlu,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s.34 of Karnataka Excise Act.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 25-5-2014
REASONS
The Sub Inspector Police, Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 of
Karnataka Excise Act.
2 C.C.No.11291/2011
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
13-4-2013 at 12.30 p.m., in front of Maruthi Engineering
Works within the limits of Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
the accused was in illegal possession and transportation of 75
pockets of Hay Wards Punch, 24 quarter bottles of Original
Choice Whisky, 19 pockets of old traven Brandi, 20 bottles of
old traven Brandi, 9 quarter bottles of silver cup brandi and
148 quarter bottles of our choice whisky in an Autorickshaw
bearing No.KA-04-AA-7837 without obtaining any license from
the government and thereby committed aforesaid offence.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of chargesheet, this
court took cognizance of the offence and furnished the copies
of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charges, this court framed the charge for the offence
punishable u/s.34 of Karnataka Excise Act and questioned
the accused regarding the charge made against him, he denied
the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case got
examined only one witness as P.W.1 and got marked six
documents at Exs.P1 to P6 and also marked two material
objects as per M.Os.1 and 2. Since C.Ws.2 to 9 did not turn
up before this court, in the interest of speedy justice to the
accused, by rejecting the prayer of Sr.APP., this court dropped
the examination of said witnesses.
3 C.C.No.11291/2011
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused
has examined only one witness by name B.S.Manjunath as
P.W.1 the Police Sub Inspector who conducted raid and who
filed the charge sheet. The testimony of P.W.1 indicating that
on 14-4-2013 at 12 p.m., he, C.Ws.4 to 7, his staff were on
patrolling duty. At that time he received credible information
about selling of liquor bottles near Corporation Bank at
Koodlu village, by keeping the same in an autorikshaw.
Immediately, in the presence of panchas he visited the said
place, conducted the raid and found that one Nagaraj was
transporting the liquor bottles in an autorikshaw. Accordingly
in the presence of panchas he seized the liquor bottles and
autorikshaw. Thereafter, he reregistered the case, recorded
the statements of witnesses and send the sample bottles for
chemical examination. After receipt of report, he filed the
charge sheet against the accused.
8. As stated above, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
4 C.C.No.11291/2011
witnesses on record. In a case like this the offence has to be
proved in a circumstantial evidence by way of proving the
seizer mahazar of seized liquor bottles and autorikshaw. Since
there is an allegation of transportation of liquor bottles in an
autorikshaw, further the prosecution has to prove that the
accused is the owner of autorikshaw bearing
No.KA-05-AA-7837 or the driver appointed by the owner of
said vehicle. In the instant case, the prosecution to prove the
seizer mahazar except examination of the Investigating Officer,
has not examined independent seizer mahazar witnesses and
other police staff who witnessed the seizer.
9. Ex.P1 is the seizer mahazar. As per Ex.P1 when this
P.W.1 and his staff were on patrolling duty at Koodlu village,
he received the credible information of transportation of liquor
bottles and pockets. Thereafter, he confirmed the said credible
information and called two persons as panchas and
requested them to stand as panchas to the raid. Since the
said persons have agreed, at 12-15 p.m., P.W.1, his staff along
with panchas left the place and visited the place of credible
information at 12.30 p.m. They found one autorikshaw. They
covered the autorikshaw and found one person in the said
autorikshaw who is the driver. They further found cotton
boxes on the back seat of said autorikshaw and also found
liquor bottles as well as liquor pockets. P.W.1 enquired the
name of the driver of said autorikshaw and came to know as
5 C.C.No.11291/2011
Nagaraj son of Krishnappa. He enquired the said person
regarding said liquor bottles and pockets and intern the said
person has stated that in view of assembly election since there
is a ban to sell the liquor bottles, he is transporting the liquor
bottles to sell the same for higher price. Accordingly, P.W.1
verified the said boxes, seized the same by preparing the
seizer mahazar and affixed the seal. Thereafter, he prepared
the specimen seal paper and brought the accused to the Police
Station. Though P.W.1 deposed regarding seizer of liquor
bottles as well as pockets, he has not explained the seizer as
per Ex.P1. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the Police Sub Inspector who
is the Investigating Officer, who always interest in out come of
his investigation as well as the prosecution. Since P.W.1 has
not explained the seizer as per Ex.P1, it is unsafe to place
reliance on his sole testimony. In my opinion, in order to rely
upon the testimony of P.W.1, corroboration by other witnesses
is necessary. Unfortunately, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined independent
seizer mahazar witnesses and the police staff who participated
in the raid. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the seizer mahazar of seized
liquor bottles as well as pockets beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. Further, the prosecution has not placed any evidence
to show that this accused is neither the owner of autorikshaw
bearing No.KA-05-AA-7837 or the driver appointed by the
6 C.C.No.11291/2011
owner of said autorikshaw. Therefore, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available
on record, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence on
record is insufficient to come to the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under Section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act.
Consequently, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offence.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. M.Os.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of May 2015) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1, B.S.Manjunath;
7 C.C.No.11291/2011LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1, Seizer mahazar, Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P2, Complaint, Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P3, FIR, Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P4, Sample seal, Ex.P4(a), Signature of P.W.1, Ex.P5, FSL report, Ex.P6, Letter;
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :
M.Os.1 and 2: Sample bottles;
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS and MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: NIL IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.8 C.C.No.11291/2011
Judgement pronounced in the open court vide separate sheet.
ORDER This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences under Section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act.
Consequently, acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offence.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. M.Os.1 and 2 are being worthless shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.