Judgment:
(Prayer: This Crl.Rp Is Filed U/S.397 R/W 401 Cr.P.O Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Tv Addl. City Civil And S.J, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore In Crl.A No. 15108/06, Vide Order Dt. 19.11.07 And Also Set Aside The Confiscation Order Passed By The Authorised Officer And Superintendent Of Excise Bangalore Urban, K.R.Circle, Bangalore In Ex.Pet.No. 179/04, Vide Order, Dt.22.03.06; Pertaining To The Confiscation Of Ambasador Car Bearing Reg.No.Ka-03-Ma-373 And Maruthi Suzuki 800 Car Bearing Reg.No. Ka 03-P-9859, Kindly Order To Release The Afore Mentioned Vehicles To The Final And Absolute Custody Of The Gpa Holder Of Petitioner.)
1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against an order of confiscation of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners by the Authorised Officer and Superintendent of Excise, Indiranagar, Bangalore in Ex.P.No. 179/2004, dated 22.08.2006 which has been confirmed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 15108/2006 by order dated 19.11.2007.
2. Brief facts which gave rise to this revision petition are as under:
On receipt of the credible information regarding illicit possession and transportation of liquor, the Excise Inspector, Indiranagar, Bangalore-PW-1-B. Sridhar Rao along with two panchas conducted raid at about 9.00 pm on house No.224, 1st cross, 18th 'D: Main Road, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar. On search of the said house, they found illicit liquor in six plastic cans of 30 liters capacity each and one Hand Cork Sealing Machine, 1500 empty plastic bottles in 30 boxes, 153 white plastic can and upon search of the Ambassador car bearing Reg. N 6. KA-0 3 - MA-373 and Maruthi Suzuki Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-P-9859 which were parked in front of the house within a compound, they found four card board boxes each containing 750 ml. capacity of 85 liquor bottles in Ambassador Car and five card board boxes containing 75 bottles each of 750 ml quantity of liquor in Maruthi Car. On enquiry with the three persons who were there in the house namely Selvaraj, Krishnamurthy and Shivaraj regarding the pass or permit to possess the liquor, they were not able tc produce any pass or permit to possess or transport the liquor. As such, all the three persons were arrested, The liquor bottles and other materials lound in the house and the liquor bottles thai were in both the cars along with cars were seized by PW-1 under a panchanama in the presence of two panchas PW-2- Vinayak and PW-3-Basavaraju. A complaint was lodged before Jeevanbheemanagar Police Station, who in turn registered a case against all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The samples of liquor bottles were sent for chemical examination and upon receipt of report, a charge-sheet came to be filed against ali the three persons for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
3. The seizure of the articles including both the cars was reported to the Authorised Officer and Superintendent of Excise of Indiranagar for confiscation. The Authorised Officer issued a show- cause notice on 12.04.2005 to General Power of Attorney Holder of owners of both the cars namely G.Selvaraj, calling upon them to show cause as to why the liquor and cars that were seized in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 should not be confiscated. There was no reply to the show-cause notice. However, General Power of Attorney. Holder participated in the proceedings. In order to prove that both the cars were involved in the excise offence, the Excise Inspector Indiranagar range is examined as PW-1. One Vinayaka, liquor shop owner and one Basavaraju, working in a liquor shop have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3 panchas to the seizure panchanama. As many as five documents came to be marked. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the mahazar. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the report given to the Authorised Officer regarding the seizure of both the cars and the liquor. Ex.P5 is the Chemical Examiner's report stating that the bottles sent for examination contained liquor. On behalf of the owners of the car namely Leelavathi Subramani owner of the Ambassador car and A. Balasubramani owner of the Maruthi Suzuki Car, one G. Selvaraj is examined as RW1, but no documents have been produced. As such, the Authorised Officer upon consideration of the entire material placed before him by his order dated 22.08.2006 confiscated both the vehicles to the Government.
4. Aggrieved by the order of confiscation of both the vehicles, the petitioners, the registered owners of both the vehicles filed a Criminal Appeal No. 15108/2006 before IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and on re- appreciation of the evidence, by his order dated 19.11.2007 dismissed the appeal while confirming the order passed by the Authorised Officer.
5. Questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by both the Authorised Officer and the Sessions Judge, this revision petition is preferred.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the search conducted in this case is illegal in as much as no search warrant was obtained to make a search in the house or in the cars or for thai matter no reasons have been recorded as to why the search warrant could not be obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is also contended that the seizure of the liquor is also not proved as both the panchas are not from the area where the offences said to have been committed and hence, learned counsel sought to set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Authorised Officer and confirmed by the Sessions Judge.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, while arguing in support of the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the Sessions Judge submitted that since i;he search warrant could not be obtained, the reasons have been recorded for the same as required under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act before conducting ttie search as could be seen from the evidence of PW-1. It is also submitted that not only the liquor but number of labels of various liquor companies along with machines have been seized from the house in possession of the accused persons and that both the cars were used for transportation of illicit liquor with the consent of both the petitioners who are registered owners of the cars. The Authorised Officer upon going through the evidence placed before him confiscated both the cars. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
9. It is seen from the records that the liquor seized from the house No.224 is in bulk quantity. Large quantity of liquor bottles were also seized from both the cars which were parked in front of the house within a compound. Apart from huge quantity cf liquor, the other articles such as labels of various liquor companies, Machines and empty plastic cans were also seized from the house. It goes to show that the accused persons were engaged not only in transportation of the illicit liquor but also in manufacturing of illicit liquor. PW-1-B. Sridhar Rao, Excise Inspector, in his evidence spoken about the same in detail. Upon securing two panchas who were examined as PW-2 and PW-3, the articles have been seized along with both the cars. Both the panchas -were independent pachas and rightly both the Authorised Officer and the Sessions Judge placed reliance on their evidence while coming to the conclusion that both the cars were used for transportation of illicit liquor. The report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P5 makes it abundantly clear that the bottle seized and sent for Chemical Examination contained the liquor. The prosecution has placed enough material to show that both the cars were being used for transportation of illicit liquor with the connivance of owner of cars Leelavathl Subramani and A. Balasubramani, which resulted in the confiscation of both the vehicles to the Government. The reasons for non-obtaining of the search warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate have been spelt out by PW-1 in his evidence, He also stated that before proceeding to search, he recorded the reasons as to why search warrant could r^ot be obtained in order to make a search in the house and in both the cars. Moreover, the power of attorney holder of both the owners namely G. Selvaraj participated in the proceedings before the Authorised Officer as well as before the Sessions Judge. Thus, both the Authorised Officer and the Sessions Judge upon appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence have rightly passed an order of confiscation of both the vehicles to the Government. I do not find any reason to call for my interference in the impugned order. The revision petition is bereft of merits. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.