Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 252 (KAR)

Palakurti v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-28

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The present petitioner (Accused No. 2) has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 225/2018 pending in the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sindhanoor (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1) and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Excise Act'). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, the Excise Sub-Inspector of Sindhanoor Range of Raichur District is the complainant in this case, who, in the FIR has stated that, based on the credible information received by him on 15-06-2017 at about 6:30 p.m. that, one Sri. Padma Rao S/o. Narasimhamurthy, resident of Rangapura Camp of Sindhanoor Taluk has kept a stock of liquor illegally in his house for its sale, without licence, has conducted a raid on the said house being accompanied with panchas. During the raid, he noticed stock of 7.800 liters of beer and 20.800 liters of liquor in the form of different brand whisky in various cartons in the said house. A person standing in front of the house identified that the said house is of one Sri. Padma Rao S/o. Narasimhamurthy. However, the said Padma Rao since had ran away from the place, he could not be arrested. 3. It appears that the said complaint was registered in the respondent Police Station in Crime No. 19/2016-17 for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1) and 38A of the Excise Act. During the course of investigation, it appears that the Investigating Officer collected the details of the owner of the said house where the alleged raid is said to have conducted and through a letter issued by the Panchayat Development Officer of Jalihala Grama Panchayat, the Investigating Officer came to know that the present petitioner Palakurti S/o. Dharmayya Dorebabu is the owner of the said premises, upon which, they raided and seizure was conducted by the complainant. As such, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer included the present petitioner also as accused No. 2 along with Padma Rao S/o. Narasimhamurthy who was arraigned as Accused No. 1. As such, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer included the present petitioner also as accused No. 2 along with Padma Rao S/o. Narasimhamurthy who was arraigned as Accused No. 1. The offences alleged in the charge sheet are under Sections 14, 15, 32(1) and 38A of the Excise Act. The said charge sheet which was taken in C.C. No. 225/2018 is said to be pending in the Trial Court. The petitioner who is accused No. 2 in the said case has sought for quashing of the said proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that even according to the respondent Police, the only offence that is alleged against the present petitioner is, the alleged ownership of the premises upon which the raid is said to have been conducted. However, the prosecution has totally failed to place any material to show that the present petitioner as the owner of the said house had any knowledge about the activity of accused No. 1, more so, in his alleged storing of liquor and beer in his house, without any licence. As such, no offence much less the one punishable under Section 38A of the Excise Act can be attracted against him. Hence, since there is absolutely no prima facie material against the present petitioner, the criminal case against him deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader who is appearing for respondent after taking notice, has placed the copy of the charge sheet before this Court and he fairly concedes that except a letter issued by the Panchayat Development Officer of Jalihala village, stating that the present petitioner is the owner of the premises upon which the raid was conducted, there are no other material to impute any knowledge of alleged offences upon the present petitioner. 6. Among the offences alleged in the charge sheet, it is only Section 38A of the Excise Act, which can be attracted against the present petitioner, who, according to the respondent, is the owner of the premises upon which the raid was conducted. Section 38A of the Excise Act reads as below: '38A. Penalty for allowing premises, etc. 6. Among the offences alleged in the charge sheet, it is only Section 38A of the Excise Act, which can be attracted against the present petitioner, who, according to the respondent, is the owner of the premises upon which the raid was conducted. Section 38A of the Excise Act reads as below: '38A. Penalty for allowing premises, etc. to be used for the purpose of committing an offence under this Act: Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the use or care or management or control, of any place, room, enclosure, space, vessel, vehicle, or place knowingly permits it to be used for the purpose of commission by any other person of an offence punishable under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37 shall, on conviction, be punished as if he has committed the offences punishable under the respective Sections.' 7. A perusal of the charge sheet materials would go to show that, including the panchanama, there are no records to show that the Investigating Officer has collected any material to show that the present petitioner had any knowledge of the alleged activity of accused No. 1. 8. It appears that the only document upon which the Investigating Officer has roped the present petitioner also in the charge sheet is, the letter said to have been shown to be given by the Panchayat Development Officer of Jalihala Grama Panchayat and dated 13-12-2017 wherein, in response to the query made by the Investigating Officer, the Panchayat Development Officer has stated that the house where the accused No. 1 i.e. Padma Rao S/o. Narasimhamurthy residing, was in the ownership of the present petitioner i.e. Palakurti S/o. Dharmayya Dorebabu. Thus, it is only on the mere fact that, the present petitioner was the owner of the said house, the Investigating Officer has jumped to include the present petitioner also as accused No. 2 in the charge sheet by incorporating Section 38A of the Excise Act. Section 38A requires that, there must be some material to show that the alleged owner of the premises had allowed the resident therein knowingly that the resident is carrying on some activity against the Excise Act. Thus, the said Section requires a prior knowledge on the part of the owner of the house to make him amenable to Section 38A of the Excise Act. Thus, the said Section requires a prior knowledge on the part of the owner of the house to make him amenable to Section 38A of the Excise Act. In the absence of any prima facie material in that regard and more so, when the learned High Court Government Pleader himself fairly concedes that the Investigating Officer has not collected any material to show that the petitioner had any knowledge of the alleged illegal activity of the accused No. 1, I have no hesitation to hold that the impleading of the present petitioner in the charge sheet as accused No. 2 is without any basis and subjecting him for trial would only result in coercing him to face a trial. As such, in the absence of any material to permit the criminal case to go against the present petitioner, I have no hesitation to hold that the criminal case pending against him deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER [i] The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. [ii] The proceedings in C.C. No. 225/2018, pending on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Sindhanoor for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1) and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, is quashed, confining to the present petitioner only. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2019 does not survive for consideration.