Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Sumangala P. Bhat on 21 March, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.91/2021
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
DAVANAGERE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
AND:
SMT. SUMANGALA P. BHAT
W/O PANDURANGA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
RESIDING AT NO.1863/A,
"SHANKARA KRUPA",
4TH MAIN, VINOBHANAGARA,
DAVANAGERE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577004. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.N.JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED
BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DAVANAGERE, AND TO CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED
2
29.09.2018 PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, DAVANAGERE IN CASE
NO.EXE/CRM/PT/23/2017-18 UNDER SECTION 43(A) 2 OF
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1964.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the
judgment of the Appellate Court passed in Crl.A.No.129/2018
dated 03.08.2019, wherein the Appellate Court set aside the
order of confiscation of the vehicle.
3. The main contention of the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State before
this Court is that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an
error in setting aside the order of confiscation and the Karnataka
Excise Act ('the Act' for short) envisages both the criminal
prosecution as well initiation of confiscation proceedings. The
very approach of the Appellate Court is erroneous and liberal
approach was made in setting aside the order of confiscation of
the vehicle. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4. Having heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State and also on perusal of
the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge in
Crl.A.No.129/2018, the Appellate Court has taken note of the
principles laid down in the judgment of this Court reported in
LAWS KARNATAKA 2018 (8) P.342 in the case of
H.K.YUAGNAMURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS. The Appellate Court has also discussed the principles
laid down in the judgment and considered the factual aspects,
when the accused was acquitted, the question of confiscation of
vehicle does not arise. Apart from that, taken note of the
observation made by this Court that the Excise officials before
confiscation have to follow the procedure under Section 43(B) of
the Act, which mandates the issuance of show cause notice
before confiscation and comes to the conclusion that no notice
has been served on the appellant herein admittedly, as it was
sent to the address in which the appellant was no more residing.
It is also observed that the grounds putforth by the owner after
receiving the notice were not properly appreciated and the
appellant had no chance to putforth her defence. Therefore, the
question of considering the prayer of the appellant did not arise
before the Excise officials and hence, allowed the appeal setting
aside the order.
5. The main contention urged before the Appellate
Court by the respondent herein is that no show cause notice is
sent to her being a R.C. Holder of the vehicle and when there is
no service of notice, the question of confiscation of vehicle does
not arise.
6. The other contention raised by the respondent is that
'B' report was filed in the case against one Channabasappa and
the petitioner-State has not considered that she being the owner
of Innova Car is depending on the income derived and without
compliance of provisions of Sections 43(A) to 43(C) of the Act,
the petitioner-State passed an order confiscating the vehicle.
The Appellate Court, taking into note of the material on record,
particularly the fact that no service of notice and no show cause
notice is issued against the appellant, who being the R.C. owner,
vehicle is confiscated.
7. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment (supra) and also the provisions of Section 43(A) of the
Act which mandates issuance of show cause notice, before
confiscation and no service of notice against the petitioner, the
Appellate Court rightly set aside the order of confiscation.
Hence, I do not find any reason to invoke revisional jurisdiction
to come to an other conclusion, in the absence of any material
regarding service of show cause notice to the RC owner of the
vehicle. Therefore, I do not find any merit to admit the revision
petition.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
