Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

State By Excise Sub Inspector vs Alleging That The Accused Has Committed ... on 7 November, 2015

     IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU

                 Dated this the 7th day of November 2015

     Present: Sri. G.V.Chandrashekhar., B.E (Civil), LL.M., P.G.Dip. in
         International Law and International Relations, New Delhi.,
                        VII ADDL. C.M.M., Bengaluru.


                     JUDGMENT U/S.355 OF Cr.P.C.:

1. CC NO.                :     20067/2007

2. Date of offence       :     22.12.2005

3. Complainant           :     State by Excise Sub Inspector.

4. Accused               :     1. Mahesh - SPLIT UP.

                               2. Kumar s/o Rudrappa,
                               aged 26 years,
                               r/at Indiranagara, near Bidadi
                               Railway Station, near
                               Housing Board,
                               Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk.

5. Offences complained of :    11, 14, 32 (1), 34
                               38 (A) and 43 of Karnataka
                               State Excise Act 1965

6. Plea                  :     Accused pleaded not guilty

7. Final order           :     Acting U/s. 248 (1) Accused is acquitted
                                      2



      The complainant police have filed the charge sheet against the

accused alleging that the accused has committed offence punishable under

Sec. 11, 14, 32 (1), 34, 38 (A) and 43 of Karnataka State Excise Act 1965.


      2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.2005 when C.W.1

Excise Inspector based on credible information went near Vrishabhavathi

Canal and Coconut Garden Main Road, near BDA Board, along with his

staff and panchas at that time one Tata Sumo vehicle No. KA-42-496 came

and they stopped and searched the same, they found that the accused No.1

was carrying the liquor illegally and thereby the accused has committed the

aforesaid offences.


      3. After filing the charge sheet, the accused No.2 was secured and

later released on bail. As accused No.1 remained absconding, case against

him is split up and registered separate case. Charge framed and read over to

accused No.2. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After that

prosecution examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and 2 and got marked 6

documents as Ex.P.1 to P.6 and M.o.1 and 2. The accused was questioned

under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared

against him. He denied the same and not chosen to adduce evidence on his

behalf.
                                       3



      4. Heard arguments from both sides.

      5. The points that arise for my consideration are :

         (1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt on
             22.12.2005 when C.W.1 Excise Inspector based on credible
             information went near Vrishabhavathi Canal and Coconut
             Garden Main Road, near BDA Board, along with his staff and
             panchas at that time one Tata Sumo vehicle No. KA-42-496
             came and they stopped and searched the same, they found that
             the accused No.1 was carrying the liquor illegally and thereby
             the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

         (2) What order ?


      6. Having regard to the arguments heard and the materials placed on

record, my answer to the above points are :

      Point No.1         :      In the negative

      Point No.2         :      See final order, for the following :

                                    REASONS

Point No.1 :

      7. P.W.1 is one Shylaja who is the Inspector of Excise has stated that

on 22.12.2005 as per the order of Excise Commissioner, Vijayanagara, she

along with her staff went near Vrishabhavathi Canal and Coconut Garden

Main Road, near BDA Board at 6.30 a.m. and at that time one Tata Sumo

vehicle No. KA-42-496 came and they stopped the same and enquired about
                                         4



the permit and when searched, they found liquor boxes containing 648 ltrs

and each bottle contains the label of Super Jock whisky. P.W.1 has further

stated that she has taken 32 bottles for samples, folded with cloth and put

seal and pasted slip by drawing mahazar Ex.P.1 and the sample bottles are

marked as M.O.1 to 32 and took the accused persons, the driver and the

owner to their office and sent the sample bottles for chemical examination.

She has further stated that she received chemical analysis report Ex.P.7 and

the report states that the liquor is duplicate and she received 'B' extract with

regard to ownership of the vehicle as per Ex.P.8 and found that the accused

No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and after completing the investigation she

has filed the charge sheet.


      8. P.W.2 is one Huchappa has stated in his evidence that about 7-8

years back at 7 a.m. when he was going near Laggere Ring Road, Laggere

Bridge, Excise Dept. officials stopped the matador vehicle and checked the

brandy bottles and they seized around 60 boxes by drawing mahazar Ex.P.1

and he signed the same as Ex.P.1 (b).


      9. Though sufficient opportunity was given C.W.2, 3 and 5 could not

be secured before the Court and hence the prayer of APP to re-issue the

process was rejected since ample opportunity was given to the prosecution
                                        5



on that regard and the evidence of the prosecution was closed. 313 Cr.P.C.

statement of the accused was recorded and there was of bare denial and no

defence evidence. It has to be noted that the above evidence is not at all

sufficient and the mahazar witness, independent witness as well as the

chemical analyst who gave the report have not been examined by the

prosecution. In the absence of the same, the above material is not at all

sufficient to inculpate the accused with that of the guilt.   Hence, I answer

this point in the negative.


Point No. 2 :

      10. In view of the reasons stated at point No.1, I proceed to pass the

following:

                                 O R D E R:

Acting U/s. 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure code, the accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s. 11, 14, 32 (1), 34, 38 (A) and 43 of Karnataka State Excise Act 1965.

Acting under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C., it is ordered that the personal bond executed by the accused No.2 and cash security deposited by the accused No.2 shall be in force for a further period of 6 months from this day.

6

Case papers and property shall be preserved for trial against split up accused No.1.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is computerized and print out taken by him is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 7th day of November 2015) (G.V.CHANDRASHEKHAR), VII ACMM, BENGALURU.

ANNEXURES:

List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
P.W.1            :        Shylaja
P.W.2            :        Huchappa


List of documents marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1           :        Mahazar
Ex.P.2           :        List of items
Ex.P.3           :        F.I.R.
Ex.P.4           :        Letter
Ex.P.5           :        Invoice
Ex.P.6           :        Copy of seal


List of Material Objects marked on behalf of the Prosecution:
M.O.1            :        Bottle

For defence:                 - NIL -



                                                                 VII ACMM, BENGALURU.
 7
 8
 9