E. RAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a CL -1 licencee and carried on the business in wholesale liquor, under the name and style M/s. Anuraga Enterprises. Excise Commissioner having directed the departmental staff to conduct detailed verification of the transaction of the wholesale dealers in Bengaluru (U) District, as per an order dated 06.09.1997, verification of accounts of M/s. Anuraga Enterprises, was taken up by a duly constituted team. A report dated 07.01.1998 vide Annexure -D having been submitted, a criminal case was registered in FIR No. 40/97 -98, on 22.01.1998. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 23.04.1999 for the offences punishable under Ss. 13(2), 39, 41, 32, 34 and 36B of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Plea of the accused was recorded on 15.10.2003. Trial has commenced in C.C. No. 16380/1999.

(2.) A complaint dated 23.09.2009 vide Annexure -B having been lodged, FIR vide Annexure -A, in Crime No. 270/2009 was registered on 23.09.2009 by the respondent. Seeking quashing of the second FIR vide Annexure -A, this petition was filed on 08.06.2011.

(3.) SRI T. Prakash, learned advocate, contended that on the same set of facts and allegations, which are subject matter of trial in C.C. No. 16380/1999, the Inspector could not have filed a second complaint on 23.09.2009 vide Annexure -B for the offences punishable under Ss. 465, 471 and 420 IPC nor the FIR registered vide Annexure -A. He submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in Annexure -A and those appearing in Annexure -E being one and the same and also arising out of the same cause of action, there is abuse of process of Court by the respondent. Alternatively, learned counsel contended that the complaint filed vide Annexure -B is barred by limitation, since, for the offences under Ss. 468, 420 and 471 IPC, maximum punishment prescribed being 7 years and 3 years respectively, the complaint ought to have been filed within the maximum period of 7 years. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged offences having taken place during 1995 -96, the complaint filed vide Annexure -B and FIR registered vide Annexure -A, is beyond the period of limitation. Placing reliance on the decision in T.T. ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA, : 2001 (6) SCC 181, learned counsel submitted that the second FIR registered vide Annexure -A is liable to be quashed.