Karnataka High Court
Anwar Baig vs State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15896
CRL.RP No. 1235 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1235 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. ANWAR BAIG
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
S/O MAHABOOB BAIG
2. NAVEED BAIG
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O ANWAR BAIG
KING HARDWARE TRADERS,
OLD MANDIPET MAIN ROAD,
TUMKUR-572 101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE
MARKETING COMMITTEE
Digitally signed by B BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 101
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: High Court ...RESPONDENT
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, SENTENCE AND CONVICTION AND
ORDER DATED 22.09.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.39/2015 BY THE II
ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKURU AND THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 31.07.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC-I, TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.1141/2007 AND THEREBY ACQUIT
THE PETITIONERS BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15896
CRL.RP No. 1235 of 2016
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner
No.1 - accused No.1 died during the pendency of this petition.
Therefore, the petition as against the petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is
dismissed as abated.
2. The petitioner No.2 is convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 117 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short `the Act, 1966') and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused persons
shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant
conducted a raid on the shop allegedly belonging to the accused No.1 on
3.8.2006, and it was uncovered that the accused were selling the rice
without obtaining license as stated under Section 8 of the Act, 1966, and
therefore, committed the aforesaid offence.
4. The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs.1 to 3,
and exhibited the documents as Exs.P1 to P4, and the accused did not
choose to examine any witnesses or mark any documents. The Trial
Court, after examining the evidence on record, held that the prosecution
has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt,
and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which
was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, against which, the
present revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
NC: 2024:KHC:15896
6. Ex.P2 is the mahazar drawn by the complainant in the
presence of panchas, and it indicated that, on 3.8.2006, the complainant
conducted a search of the shop allegedly belonging to the accused No.1,
and upon enquiry, the accused No.2 is said to have stated that the shop
belongs to his father, and that, they have not obtained license for
carrying on business of trading in rice. The spot mahazar further
indicated that 150 kgs of rice was stacked in gunny bags.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW2 is the then
Deputy Director of Legal Enforcement Cell, who conducted seizure as
stated under Section 66 of the Act, 1966, and in his cross-examination,
he categorically stated that he has not seized the rice, and also not
opened the bags allegedly containing rice. He further stated that there
was no samples of rice found at the time of search. Similar statement is
made by PW3, who is one of the witnesses to the spot mahazar.
8. The prosecution has produced Ex.P4 i.e. invoice issued by
Sri Lakshmi Narayana Rice Mill to substantiate that the accused had
purchased 200 bags each containing 25 kgs of rice. However, the
invoice does not bear the signature of the accused, and the owner of the
rice mill has not been examined to substantiate that the rice was
purchased by the accused from the rice mill. Ex.P4 - invoice was not
part of seizure mahazar. Therefore, Ex.P4 has no evidentiary value in
the absence of any evidence that the accused No.2 was selling rice
without obtaining licence, and paying market fee as stated under Section
68 of the Act, 1966. The prosecution has failed to establish that the
petitioner - accused No.2 in contravention of Section 8 of the Act, 1966
was selling rice punishable under Section 117 of the Act, 1966.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial
NC: 2024:KHC:15896
Court, and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge requires to be
interfered. Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
22.9.2016 passed in Crl.A No.39/2015 by the learned II Addl. District
Judge, Tumkuru, and the judgment and order dated 31.7.2015 passed
in CC No.1141/2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-1 at
Tumkuru stand quashed.
iii) The petitioner - accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 117 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.
iv) The bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKM
