Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (1.13 seconds)Section 53 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
K. L. Subbayya vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 1979
13. Admittedly, the accused said to be selling the liquor
in the bus stand of Hunagund. Absolutely there was no time
for the complainant PW-3 for obtaining search warrant from
the Magistrate under Section 53 of K.E. Act. But Section 54 of
the K.E. Act provides that by recording the reason in writing
that should be used as FIR in future. But here in this case,
PW-3 not at all produced any such document and marked
before the Court that he has made an attempt to obtain
11
search warrant from the Magistrate or else he has recorded
the reason for not obtaining search warrant but proceeded to
spot for seizing the liquor. Therefore, once the cognizable
offence is made out, the police officer or excise department
shall have to be register the FIR before proceeding to spot as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.
State of Uttara Pradesh without registering the FIR
proceeded to the spot seizing and preparing panchanama is
violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. In a similar
circumstance, this Court in the case of Crl.P.No.278/2018 c/w
Crl.P.No.279/2018 dated 09.03.2022 has quashed the
proceedings by invoking the provisions under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. Likewise, the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court has
also acquitted the accused in Crl.A.No.2892/2012 dated
15.07.2020 and in Crl.A.No.2805/2009 dated 07.07.2017 by
following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in the case of K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in 1979 (2) SCC 115. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
12
set aside the judgment of sentence passed by the trial Court
and upheld by the appellate Court. In view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Section 53 and 54 of
K.E. Act, PW-3 has not at all followed the mandatory
provisions. Therefore, conviction and sentence by the trial
Court and upheld by the first appellate Court is not sustainable
under law. Therefore, by invoking Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court
and upheld by the first appellate Court is required to be set
aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order.