Bangalore District Court
State By Jalahalli vs Persons. Hence on 2 December, 2019
1 CC No.10782/09
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019
Present : Sri.Prakash Channappa Kurubett
B.Sc., LL.B.(Spl).,
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.
1.C.C.No. 10782/2009
2.Date of 02.02.2009
offence
3.Complainant State by Jalahalli
Police Station
4.Accused 1.Deepak Bute
Son of Hemanth,
Aged about 26 years,
2. Sandeep Bute
Son of Hemanth,
Aged about 25 years,
Both are residing
at No.16, 1st Cross,
Sharadambhanagar,
Jalahalli, Bengaluru.
5. Offences U/Sec. 32, 34 and 38(A) of
complained of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965,
Section 420 and 284 r/w Sec.34
2 CC No.10782/09
of IPC and sections 102 and 103
of Trademarks Act, 1999.
6.Plea Accused Nos.1 & 2 pleaded not
guilty.
7.Final Order Accused Nos.1 & 2 are acquitted
8.Date of Order 02/12/2019.
REASONS
The Police Sub-Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against the accused persons
for the offences punishable U/Sec.32, 34 and 38(A) of Karnataka
Excise Act, 1965, Section 420 and 284 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and
sections 102 and 103 of Trademarks Act, 1999.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 02/02/2009
at about 2.00 p.m., in Bhavani Bottle Supplies godown, situated at
4th cross, Jalahalli, Bangalore, within the limits of Jalahalli police
station the accused Nos.1 and 2 being the owners of the said
3 CC No.10782/09
godown, without obtaining any license or permission from the
competent authorities, by violating the Karnataka Excise Rules,
prepared an intoxicated liquor, filled to different size bottles, pasted
fake labels on it in the brand name of 'old Monk Rum' and ' Super
Jock Whisky', were in possession of 450 each duplicate whisky
bottles in the brand name of Old Monk and Super Jock Whisky,
thereby contravened the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act,
further the accused persons with common intention were selling
the same to the general public as if the said liquor bottles are
supplied by license holders, thereby cheated the general public as
well as the license holder companies and also infringed the
Trademark of above said branded companies and committed
aforesaid offences. Hence, CW.1- T.Ramaiah Police Inspector
lodged the first information. The Station House Officer registered a
case in Cr.No.22/09 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 32, 34 and
38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Section 420 and 284 r/w
Sec.34 of IPC and sections 102 and 103 of Trademarks Act, and
4 CC No.10782/09
submitted First Information Report to this Court. After
investigation, Sub-Inspector of Jalahalli Police Station filed charge
sheet for the said offences punishable U/Sec. 32, 34 and 38(A) of
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Section 420 and 284 r/w Sec.34 of
IPC and sections 102 and 103 of Trademarks Act, against the
accused persons. Hence, they have committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused persons are on bail. On receipt of charge sheet, this
court took the cognizance of the alleged offences and furnished
copy of the prosecution papers to the accused. After hearing on
charge, my learned Predecessor-in-Office has framed charge for
the offences punishable U/Sec. 32, 34 and 38(A) of Karnataka
Excise Act, 1965, Section 420 and 284 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and
sections 102 and 103 of Trademarks Act, for which accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 CC No.10782/09
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 7
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.7, and documents got marked at Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.8, and material objects at MO.1 and 2, and closed the side
of the prosecution evidence, and Statements u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.
are recorded, read over and explained in the vernacular language
of the accused, wherein accused have denied the incriminating
circumstances appeared against them as false and did not choose
to lead defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. As
such, the matter was posted for arguments.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
6. As stated above, the prosecution to prove guilt against the
accused Nos.1 and 2 has examined seven witnesses. P.W.1
V.K.Nagaraj is the PSI who participated in the seizer mahazar.
P.W.2 Ramamurthy is the person who gave opinion in respect of
seizure of empty bottles in the brand name of 'Old Monk'. P.W.3
T.Ramaiah is the complainant the police inspector who conducted
6 CC No.10782/09
the raid. P.W.4 M.S.Sathyanarayana is another police inspector
who investigated the matter and filed chargesheet. P.W.5
T.N.Sundar Rajan is the Chief Chemist of private distillery who
gave opinion regarding two branded bottles. P.W.6 Girish.A.V is
the Excise Inspector who participated in the raid. P.W.7
C.S.Indrasena is the person who gave opinion regarding the seized
labels. It appears that, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities
the prosecution has not examined other witnesses on record.
7. I have carefully perused the evidence on record. As per the
case of the prosecution, P.W.1 V.K.Nagaraj, P.W.3 Ramaiah and
P.W.6 Girish.A.V are participated in the seizure mahazar. The
testimony of P.W.3 T.Ramaiah the complainant indicates that on
02/02/2009 he received the credible information about preparing
of duplicate liquor and selling of the same in bottles by fixing the
fake labels in the brand name of SPR and Shashi Distillery.
Accordingly, he informed said message to his staff and excise
7 CC No.10782/09
department, and asked the officials of said department to visit 4 th
cross at Sharadamba Nagar, Jalahalli, Bangalore. In turn he, and
his staff along with excise department officials together conducted
raid and found accused persons in the said place. Upon seeing
himself, his staffs and excise department officials, the accused
persons tried to escape. However, his officials caught hold them
and came to know that they are the owners of Bhavani Bottles
Suppliers Company. On verification, he found 43 cotton boxes
containing liquor bottles and 900 empty bottles. Out of 900 bottles,
450 are in the brand name of old monk and 450 are in the brand
name of Super Jock Whiskey. He also found six mini Lorries
containing empty bottles and empty cotton boxes. Accordingly, he
seized the same in the presence of panchas. He took one bottle
each of old Monk and Super Jock Whisky as samples, sealed the
same and prepared three specimen seals. Thereafter, he return to
his office, registered suo-moto case and enquired the accused
persons. On enquiry, he came to know that accused are supplying
8 CC No.10782/09
the duplicate liquor bottles to Hyderabad. Thereafter, on 18-2-
2009, he obtained report from SPR group of companies and Shashi
distilleries and handed over case papers to CW.13 for further
investigation. It is to be, noted here that P.W.3 not tendered for
cross-examination.
8. P.W.1 V.K.Nagaraj the then PSI of Jalahalli Police Station has
corroborated the testimony of P.W.3 in the matter of raid,
preparing of seizure mahazar and seizer of above referred
contaminated liquor bottles, vehicles and other materials. His
testimony indicates that P.W.3 his station police inspector upon
credible information about storage of drugs and contaminated
liquors, took him, his other staffs including excise staff to Bhavani
Suppliers godown, Sharadambanagar, Jalahalli Bangalore city.
They found accused persons in the said place and on seeing them
the said persons tried to escape. He and others caught hold
accused persons and on verification of said boxes, they found
9 CC No.10782/09
empty bottles and 900 bottles of Raja Whisky and Rum. P.W.3 has
seized the same along with nine covers and other materials by
preparing the seizure mahazar. Further, they found fake labels on
the bottles and accused did not own any license to possess above
seized materials. On enquiry, they came to know that accused
persons are supplying contaminated liquor bottles to one Ajith
Singh of Hyderabad. Since PW.1 not explained the seizure as per
the case of the prosecution, the learned Sr.App treated this witness
as hostile and cross-examined. In the cross-examination, P.W.1
has admitted the suggestion that they found fake old monk rum
and super Jock Whisky labels on the bottles. On further enquiry,
the accused persons have stated that they were supplying the
intoxicated liquor to one Guru Charan Singh Baga and Ajith Singh
Bay of Yellampet, Hydrabad.
9. PW.6 Girish A.V the Excise Guard has also corroborated the
testimony of PW.3. His testimony indicates that on 02/02/2009.
10 CC No.10782/09
PW.3 his station police inspector, upon credible information about
storage of contaminated liquors, took him, his other staffs
including excise staff to Bhavani Suppliers godown,
Sharadambanagar, Jalahalli Bangalore city. C.W.8 Maniraju the
excise guard verified the said godown and found cotton boxes. On
further verification of said boxes, they found liquor bottles in the
bottom and empty bottles on the top. On further verification, they
found 450 liquor bottles in the brand name of old monk rum and
450 bottles of super Jock whisky. P.W.3 took one bottle each in
both categories as sample. They also found six Lorries containing
loading of empty bottles. Since the accused persons not produced
any license and they stated that they are supplying the liquor
bottles to one Gurucharan Singh Baga and Ajith Singh Baga of
Yellampet, Hyderabad, P.W.3 has seized the same by preparing the
seizure mahazar.
11 CC No.10782/09
10. The testimony of P.W.2 Rama Murthy indicates that on 17-2-
2009 the Jalahalli police sent one old monk 180 ml bottle for
examination to his lab, he found that the said bottle did not belong
to his Shashi Distilleries. Even batch number spirit, code printing
did not tally with his company and accordingly he gave opinion as
per Ex.P.2.
11. The testimony of P.W.4 M.S.Satyanarayana the Investigating
Officer indicating that on 7-3-2009 he received case papers from
P.W.3 and on 11-3-2009 he sent sample bottles to FSL report and
on 31-7-2009 he received report thereafter he filed charge sheet
against accused the persons.
12. The testimony of P.W.5 T.N.Sundar Rajan indicating that
about 4 to 5 years back, when he was in his office, the Excise
Superintendent shown two bottles to him. He filed that the said
two bottles did not produced by his Super Jock Whisky, and Super
12 CC No.10782/09
Jock Whisky. Further the government stickers, caps label and
colour of said bottles did not tally with his company and
accordingly he gave report as per Ex.P.3.
13. The testimony of P.W.7 C.S. Indrasena indicating that on 18-
2-2009 P.W.3 has sent two bottles for his opinion as to whether
label on caps is genuine or duplicate. He verified and found that the
label did not tally with the security specification of his complaint
and accordingly he gave opinion at Ex.P.8 that the said labels wer
fake. Upon careful verification of charge sheet, the evidence
available on record and other material, it is very much clear that the
prosecution to establish its case has to prove that seizure mahazar
of seized liquor bottles, empty bottles, labels, caps and lorries,
beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Further the prosecution has to prove possession of seized
material including vehicles by the accused persons and also to
prove that accused persons are legal possessions of liquor and
13 CC No.10782/09
Bhavani Suppliers godown and seized liquor is unfit for human
consumption. Further the prosecution has to prove that SPR group
of company and Shashi Distilleries company had trade monk over
super Jock whisky label and Raja Whisky label.
15. In the instant case the prosecution to prove seizure mahazar
has examination three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 3 and 6. It is to be,
noted here that, P.W.3 the investigating officer in whose leadership
raid and seizure of intoxicated liquor, and fake labels conducted
has not tendered for cross-examination. Hence, there is no clear,
cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of accused as alleged
by the prosecution.
9. The other witnesses, i.e. CW. 2, 3, 8 to 11 did not turn up in
spite of taking coercive steps and they were dropped by rejecting
the prayer of learned Sr.APP. The above evidence creates
reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The benefit of doubt
always goes to accused. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that
14 CC No.10782/09
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused Nos1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 32, 34 and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Section 420 and 284 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and sections 102 and 103 of Trademarks Act.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 stand cancelled.
The properties i.e. MO.1 and 2 bottles seized under P.F.No.06/19 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, and print out taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 2 nd day of December, 2019.) (P.C.KURUBETT) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
15 CC No.10782/09ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1: V.K.Nagaraj PW.2: Ramammrutham PW.3: T.Ramaiah PW.4: M.S.Sathyanarayana PW.5: T.N.Sundarrajan PW.6: Girish.A.V. PW.7: C.S.Indrasena. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Mahazar
Ex.P.1(a&b): Signatures of PW.1&3 Ex.P.2 to 4: Reports Ex.P.5: Complaint Ex.P.5(a&b): Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.6: FIR Ex.P.6(a): Signature of PW.3.
Ex.P.7: Report Ex.P.8: Opinion
Ex.P.8(a): Signature of PW.7. List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 & 2: Bottles.
16 CC No.10782/09List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of documents and materials marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL.
IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.