Karnataka High Court
B Krishnappagowda vs Circle Inspector Of Police on 23 April, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1306/2011
BETWEEN:
B.KRISHNAPPAGOWDA
S/O LATE APPEGOWDA, 60 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST, R/O BADIGE VILLAGE, NUGGI
BERUKODIGE POST, KOPPA TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.K.THIMME GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOPPA POLICE STATION
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
2. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND
DY. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
CHIKKAMAGALUR
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397
R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
DATED 26.09.2011, PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.81/2010, ON THE
FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AT
CHIKMAGALUR & ETC.
THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
There are concurrent findings of Authorised Officer and learned Sessions Judge that vehicle of petitioner viz Mini Lorry bearing No.KA-18/3439 was used for transportation of arrack packets without permit. The vehicle was intercepted at about 12.40 a.m., during midnight of 17.12.2005. The Authorised Officer on consideration of evidence of PW1 to PW4 has recorded a finding that an offence under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') has been committed and vehicle is liable for confiscation. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the order of Authorised Officer. Therefore, petitioner is before this court.
2. The law is fairly well settled that this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner. 3
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner, relying on a decision of this court, reported in ILR 1999 KAR 2872 (in the case of L.Srinivas Vs. The Authorised Officer & Superintendent of Excise) would submit that Authorised Officer should not have confiscated vehicle.
5. In the aforestated case, the Authorised Officer had not recorded any finding that user of vehicle was in relation to commission of offence under the Act.
In the case on hand, the Authorised Officer has recorded evidence of PW1 to PW4 to arrive at a conclusion that an offence under the Act was committed, in other words, vehicle was used for transportation of arrack sachets, without permit which is punishable under the Act.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court, reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1951 (in the 4 case of M.Krishnagouda Vs. Authorised Officer & Superintendent of Excise, Gulbarga).
7. After going through the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, I find that Authorised Officer has held a detailed inquiry, but for the reasons best known to petitioner, he has not adduced evidence.
8. In a decision reported in 2004(3) KAR.L.J. 432 (in the case of State of Karnataka & another Vs. M.Haneef & another), this court has held:-
"8. At this stage, it is necessary to quote a part of the provisions of Section 43-A(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, which runs as under:
"(2) On production of the seized property under Sub-section (1), the Authorised Officer, if satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property".5
On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the Authorised Officer is required to be satisfied that an offence under the Karnataka Excise Act had been committed irrespective of the fact whether the prosecution had been instituted against the accused or not. This statutory provision also makes it clear that the Authorised Officer is required to satisfy himself independently. It is a settled principle of law that the Courts of law will have to administer justice strictly in accordance with law and interpret the law keeping in mind the intention of the Legislature and cannot afford to legislate. From the said provision, it is clear that the decision on the part of the Authorised Officer is independent in nature. In other words, it makes it clear that the judgment of acquittal passed by a Criminal Court has no relevance in confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act.
9. It is also pertinent to mention a judgment of the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has held that the prosecution under the 6 provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and the confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act are separate and distinct.
10. It is also pertinent to mention that the Karnataka Excise Act also contains a similar provision as that of the Karnataka Forest Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases and the settled law under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and the Karnataka Excise Act, the ratio laid down in the said decision can be pressed into service in this regard.
11. It is also brought to the notice of the Court an unreported decision of this Court rendered on 8-9-2003 in State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Annayya, 2004(3) Kar. L.J. 429 wherein this Court had also expressed the similar view, while dealing with a case under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act.
9. The law is fairly well settled that owner of vehicle has to adduce evidence to prove or establish that he had taken necessary precaution to prove misuse of his vehicle and he had entrusted his vehicle to a person of his confidence. The 7 owner of vehicle has to prove that there was no connivance of owner and driver of vehicle for transportation of liquour without permit.
In the case on hand, the owner of vehicle (petitioner herein) has not adduced any evidence.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that after vehicle was confiscated, seizure of vehicle was not reported to Authorised Officer.
11. In my considered opinion, this submission is untenable. As could be seen from records, petitioner had obtained interim custody of vehicle from Authorised Officer and Authorised Officer had caused a show-cause notice as to why vehicle should not be confiscated.
12. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that driver and inmates of vehicle should have been given an opportunity before confiscation of vehicle. 8
13. In my considered opinion, this contention is prima facie untenable. The confiscation of vehicle to State results in divestment of ownership of vehicle. In other words, owner of vehicle loses ownership and ownership vests with the State. Therefore, driver and inmates of vehicle need not be notified and they are neither necessary nor proper parties to confiscation proceedings. The revision petition is devoid of merits.
14. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN