SAMUEL JOHN S, S/O A E SANATH KUMAR Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER & DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (EAST), BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - II at Bengaluru Rural District in Criminal Appeal No.21/2009 dated 28.10.2010 whereby the order passed by the competent authority under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short 'Act) has been upheld dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle Maruthi Alto Car with registration bearing No.KA-03-MG-757 The petitioner was working as Sepoy in the Indian Army during 19.05.2007 till 09.01.2008 at Pathankot. During that time, the said vehicle appears to have been in the custody of his parents at Kolar. On 30.09.2007, one Sri.Gopalkrishna who is known to the petitioner and his parents, took the vehicle under the pretext of repair and maintenance and the same was allegedly used by the said Gopalkrishna and his brother Venkatesh for transporting illicit liquor.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to consider the material documentary evidence placed to substantiate the defence taken by the petitioner in as much as the petitioner working in the Indian Army at Pathankot during the relevant period in question. Inconsistency found in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 also has not been appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the appeal. The learned counsel inviting the attention of this Court to Section 43-B of the Act, submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the vehicle misused by his friend Sri.Gopalakrishna-accused No.1 for transporting contraband liquor illegally. The competent authority under the Excise Act as well as learned Sessions Judge proceeded to disbelieve the defence of the petitioner primarily on the ground that no corroborating evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate his defence except the mere say of the petitioner. It is hard to prove a negative. The possession of the vehicle taken by Sri.Gopalakrishna-accused No.1 from his parents without his knowledge and such ignorance of fact is difficult to prove with any substantial evidence. The petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him before the jurisdictional court in CC No.326/2008, as such seeks for setting aside the judgment and order impugned herein, allowing the revision petition.