Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Section 34 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
State Of Mysore vs K. Mohamed Ismail on 20 December, 1957
4. Further, in interpreting Rule 21 of the Karnataka
Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of
5
Intoxicants) Rules, 1967, this Court has consistently held the
same view, in circumstances as above. (See State of Mysore vs.
Mohamed Jaffar and others 1966 (2) KLJ 91 and Mahapursha
Durga Joglekar vs. State of Karnataka 1977 (2) KLJ 463 as
well as in M.R. Manjunath Ramappa Gowda vs. The Authorized
Officer & Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chickmagalur
District & Another 2012 (4) AIR Kar Reporter 18). With
particular reference to the presumption as to commission of
offence in certain cases in prosecutions under Sections 32 and
34, it has been held that it shall be so presumed until the
contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed an
offence punishable under the Section in respect of liquor,
however, a rebuttable presumption. If the petitioner is found in
possession of intoxicating substances for which he did not have
a permit, it would certainly give rise to a presumption that an
offence has been committed. But however, when a person is
sought to be prosecuted, the prosecution is required to prove
6
beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a clear violation of the
provisions of the Excise Act.
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 59A in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
1