AMZADULLA KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kolar District under Section 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act by confiscating the lorry belonging to the petitioner which was involved in transporting the illicit liquor on 9.9.2006 for having committed the offence punishable under Section 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act. Criminal case came to be registered against the driver and three other persons traveling in the lorry.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, police had credible information that illicit liquor is being transported in a truck bearing No.MP-09/KA 4309 on 9.9.2006 at about 1.30 a.m. when they were waiting near R.L.Jalappa hospital, NH-4, Mulbagal road, a truck bearing No. MP-09/KA 4309 came from Tamaka side and was proceeding to Mulbagal, on signal, the driver of the vehicle one Hidayathulla stopped the vehicle and tried to run away. However, police caught hold of one Shivappa and on verification, they found 160 plastic bags containing 290 packets, each containing 100 ml liquor, labeled as Gowri Industries Pvt. Ltd, B.H.Road, Gowribidanur, worth of Rs.46,400/-. The vehicle was seized. The accused were arrested. Later a criminal prosecution launched against the driver and other persons, who came to be acquitted. However, proceeding under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Excise Act has been initiated against the petitioner being the owner of the truck in question. Case was registered as No.E1B/7/38/MU/2006-07 dated 8.4.2010, a notice has been caused to the petitioner and he has given reply to the notice through his counsel admitting transporting of liquor in his lorry through his driver, however it is contended that some persons came in a car requested the driver to transport the liquor stating that they are having licence. The driver of the lorry accepted the contract and agreed to transport the liquor for Rs.3000/- as transportation charges. The petitioner also stated that when the lorry was intercepted by the police, the driver of the lorry informed that one Ramappa had stated that he is having licence and a person was also following in a car bearing No.KA-35 1079. Petitioner also stated some cell phone numbers of other persons. Thereafter, during the proceedings five witnesses have been examined in support of the case of the prosecution. Despite crossexamination nothing has been elicited and later the petitioner and counsel remained absent. After affording sufficient opportunities the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who is the authorized officer passed an order on 8.4.2010 by confiscating the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Kolar in Crl.A.No.24/2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2010. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The petitioner preferred this revision on various grounds contending that though question of law is involved and the petitioner argued several points, the same were not considered by the 2nd respondent herein while passing the order. The Sessions Judge also has not considered the fact that not all the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case, etc. and prayed for allowing the petition.