Court dismisses the criminal appeal filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court
The criminal appeal is filed under section 482 of CR.P.C ( speaks about High court can’t pass adverse order or observations against third party) praying to quash the order which was passed by Additional and session judge for illegally transporting alcohol from one state to another. But the petition was dismissed by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honourable MR. K Natrajan in the case Madhu transport company vs the authority officer ( criminal petition no. 2382 of 2022) on 20th December 2022. Facts of the case are that the Excise Department has seized the lorries belonging to the petitioners while transporting the spirit and registered a case on 20.01.2019 so also FIR in 122/2018-19 for carrying “Extra Netural Alcohol” (Spirit) from Madhya Pradesh to Kumbalgod, Karnataka. During the pendency of the investigation, the Excise Department took up the proceedings under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and confiscated the vehicles belonging to the petitioners including the spirit vide order dated 15.02.2020.  Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, petitioners being the transporters filed an appeal before the Additional District &amp; Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, however, the Dist &amp; Sessions Judge has allowed for releasing the vehicles to the petitioners but, has directed for destroying the spirit as unfit for human consumption. Therefore, the petitioners are appeared before this court. Arguments presented by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the criminal proceedings against these two petitioners have already been quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court and there is no case against these petitioners. These petitioners are running lorry transport. They have carried the spirit for their living and there is no intention of transporting for commission of offence. Arguments presented by the learned High court government pleader appearing for respondent the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court as it is legal and valid. After hearing both the counsels and records presented by them before the honourable court that it is not in dispute that the vehicles bearing registration nos.UP-15-AT-8941 and UP-15BT-8611 belong to the petitioners. The two trucks which was plying from Madhya Pradesh to Kumbalgod at Bengaluru, Karnataka carrying, were seized. A case was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners, distillery owner as well as the buyer. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the transporters who were hired on contract for carrying the spirit as ordered by the customers or the distillery owner. There is no offence committed by them except lending the vehicles for rent. Such being the case, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners dated 18.07.2019. That apart, the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 43-A of the Act has been taken up by the Authorised Officer and the vehicles as well as the spirit were confiscated. The First Appellate Court rightly set-aside the order of the Excise Department confiscating the lorries and ordered for release which has ended in finality. But, the First Appellate Court has directed the authority to destroy the spirit. Even the buyer and supplier of sprit has not come forward to challenge the order passed by the session judge. And the petitioners who have lent the truck for carrying the sprits, have no authority or ownership over the spirit and it cannot be returned to them. The Excise Department rightly confiscated the spirit under Section 43-A of the Act and First Appellate Court has rightly ordered to destroy the spirit as it is hazardous to the health and unfit for human consumption.If at all the supplier or the buyer had come forward seeking any counter claim of the spirit, the Court could have Considered it. But they have not challenged the same and the petitioners have no ownership over the spirit and have no authority to challenge the impugned order. The spirit was seized on 20.01.2019 and three years have elapsed as on today. Definitely the spirit becomes spurious and dangerous to life. Therefore, it has to be destroyed as per law passed by the session court. And the petition is dismissed by the high court of Karnataka and also contended that the petitioner are not liable to pay the value of the sprits. Click here to read the judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2382 2021 1. MADHU TRANSPORT COMPANY RAJNISH JAIN BY ITS PARTANER SHREYAS JAIN S O RAJNEESH JAIN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS NO.750 BARAL PARTAPUR MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH 250 103. THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TARUN KUMAR S O RAMESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R AT NO.184 SHAKYAPURI MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH 2. M S JAIN BULK CARRIER A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY SHRI GAUTHAM JAIN S O SUBASH CHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NEAR BHADHUR MOTORS DELHI ROAD MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANSHUL GUPTA S O SATHISH CHAND GUPTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R AT NO.A.44 FLAT NO.5 PRATHAP VIHAR COLONY DELHI RAOD NEAR MADHAVA PURAM MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH. PETITIONERS 2 BY SRI G K BHAT SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT SUDHA D ADV.) THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 572 101. BY SRI ROHITH B J HCGP) ..RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2020 PASSED BY TEH HONOURABLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU DISTRICT IN CRL.A.NO.36 2020 AS PER ANNEXURE B INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO DIRECTION TO CONFISCATE THE EXTRA NEUTRAL SPIRIT LOADED IN THE VEHICLES BEARING REGISTRATION NO.UP 15 AT 8941 AND UP 15 BT 8611. CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: This petition is filed by the petitioners appellant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge Tumakuru in Crl.A.36 2020 directing respondent to destroy the spirit which was seized by the authorities on registering the case against the petitioners and others. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP. 3. The case of the petitioners is that Excise Department is said to have seized the lorries belonging to the petitioners while transporting the spirit and registered case on 20.01.2019 so also FIR in 122 2018 19 for carrying "Extra Netural Alcohol" from Madhya Pradesh to Kumbalgod Karnataka. During the pendency of the investigation the Excise Department took up the proceedings under Section 43 A of the Karnataka Excise Act 1965 and confiscated the vehicles belonging to the petitioners including the spirit vide order dated 15.02.2020 in No.EXE AOC 14 2018 19. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation petitioners being the transporters filed an appeal before the II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Tumakuru however the Dist & Sessions Judge has allowed for releasing the vehicles to the petitioners but has directed for destroying the spirit as unfit for human consumption. Therefore the petitioners are before this 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the criminal proceedings against these two petitioners have already been quashed by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court and there is no case against these petitioners. These petitioners are running lorry transport. They have carried the spirit for freight and there is no intention of transporting for commission of offence. Considering this fact the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings. The First Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court committed error in ordering for destroying the spirit instead of returning to the petitioners as in turn petitioners are liable to return the spirit to either the distillery owner or the buyer. Therefore prayed for setting aside the order. 5. Per contra learned HCGP submitted that the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court as it is legal and valid. 6. On hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records it is not in dispute that the vehicles bearing Regn. Nos.UP 15 AT 8941 and UP 15BT 8611 belong to the petitioners. The two trucks which was plying from Madhya pradesh to Kumbalgod at Bengaluru Karnataka carrying 5 spirit were seized. A case was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners distillery owner as well as the buyer. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the transporters who were hired on contract for carrying the spirit as ordered by the customers or the distillery owner. There is no offence committed by them except lending the vehicles for rent. Such being the case the Co ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.3424 2019 dated 18.07.2019. That apart the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 43 A of the Act has been taken up by the Authorised Officer and the vehicles as well as the spirit were confiscated. The First Appellate Court rightly set aside the order of the Excise Department confiscating the lorries and ordered for release which has ended in finality. But the First Appellate Court has directed the authority to destroy the spirit which is under challenge. 7. The petitioners counsel submit that they have carried the spirit for rental purpose and that if the spirit is not returned the petitioners will be prosecuted and liable for payment of the value of the spirit. 6 8. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that the owner i.e. buyer of the spirit or the supplier i.e. the distillery owner have not come forward for seeking release of the spirit and they are also facing the trial before the trial Court and they have not challenged either the charge sheet or confiscation of the spirit. The petitioners who have only lent the lorrries trucks for carrying the spirit have no authority or ownership over the spirit and it cannot be returned to the petitioners transporters. The Excise Department rightly confiscated the spirit under Section 43 A of the Act and First Appellate Court i.e. Sessions Court has rightly ordered to destroy the spirit as it is hazardous to the health and unfit for human consumption. If at all the distillery owner or the buyer had come forward seeking any counter claim of the spirit the Court could have considered it. But they have not challenged the same and the petitioners have no ownership over the spirit and have no authority to challenge the impugned order. The spirit was seized on 20.01.2019 and three years have elapsed as on today. Definitely the spirit becomes spurious and dangerous to life. Therefore it has to be destroyed as per 7 law. Therefore I do not find any error in the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the II Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru in Crl.A.36 2020 ordering to destroy the spirit which was seized by the Excise Department. However it is pertinent to note that the petitioners cannot be made liable for any payment of value of the spirit to either the distillery owner or the buyer as they are involved in crime. Hence the following: The petition is dismissed. There shall not be any liability on the petitioner in respect of the value of the spirit and the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the II Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge at Tumakuru in Crl.A.36 2020 ordering for destroying the spirit is hereby confirmed. JUDGE Sd 