Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1147; 2004(3)KarLJ432
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. Both cases involve common questions of law and common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These revision petitions filed by the State under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. are directed against the judgments dated 27-3-2001 and 7-4-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Marigalore, in Cri. A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1998, respectively, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the orders of confiscation dated 14-12-1997 and 24-12-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer in Nos. SDK/DTCR/135/91-92 and SDK/DTCK/271/92-93, respectively, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgments impugned.2-A. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Karnataka and Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.3. In both these cases, the short question that arises for consideration is whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ578
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554, 25265 to 25272, 28992 to 29016 and 26975 to 26997 of 2001.Since the constitutional validity of amended Sections 15-A and 32 to the Karnataka Excise Act is challenged in all these writ petitions and since the same questions of law are involved, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. All the petitioners are hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28992 to 29016 are the hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants at Belgaum City. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25265 to 25272 are running their restaurants at Gadag Town, so is petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554 at Dharwad and petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26975 to 26997 at Gadag Town.3. They all contend in their writ petitions that they have no licence to vend liquor at their restaurants though most of them have applied for grant of excise licences in this regard. Customers who visit their hotels purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1695; 1988(2)KarLJ118
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J.1. These batches of Writ Appeals are disposed of by this judgment as a common question of law arises in all these appeals.2. The respondents ere all Excise Contractors. They are aggrieved by the amendment to Rule 15 of the Kama take Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Rules.) The amendment in the rule is effected by Notification gazetted on 25-6-1983 which came into force with effect from 1-7-1983.3. Prior to the coming into force of the amendment in Rule 15 of the Rules, the rent not paid before the stipulated date, namely, 10th of a month, was liable to be charged with interest at the rate of 6 1/4%. By the amendment effected, the rate of interest in Rule 15 of the Rules, has been raised to 18%. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that they were adversely hit by the amendment brought about inasmuch as the raising of the rate of interest from 6 1/4% to 18% is arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. Plea was also se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR3128; 2004(1)KarLJ561
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed in CRL APPEAL NO. 34/03 by the Prl Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore dt 18.6.2003 dismissing the appeal by confirming the order, has come up with this revision petition.2. The brief facts are as follows:The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing Regn No KA-14/m-1706 and the said vehicle was seized by the Police Sub-Inspector, Vittal Police Station, Vittal, on 3.5.2002 while illegally transporting non-duty paid liquor from the State of Karnataka to Kerala, and a case was registered in Crime No 39/02 for the offence punishable u/s 32, 34, 43(3) of the Karnataka Excise Act against the accused and reported the same to the Superintendent of Excise (an Authorised Officer), DK, Mangalore who in-turn registered a case on his file in SDK/457/DTCR/2001-02. The petitioner filed an application before the authorised officer for release of the vehicle Tata-sumo in question. The authorised officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3072; 1996(5)KarLJ719
ORDERRajendra Babu, J1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the validity of Act 2/1994 which came into force with effect from 8th October, 1993 by which Section 24 of Karnataka Excise Act was substituted enablingthe State Government to accept payment of a sum or levy such licence fee or privilege fee as may be prescribed in consideration of grant of lease or licence or both by or under the Karnataka Excise Act. Section 3 of the Validation Act provides that Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules are valid notwithstanding any Judgment to the contrary on the basis that the said Rule had been framed under the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act 2 of 1994.2. Identical contentions urged in support of the challenge to the validity of the said provisions of the Act or the reasonableness thereof have been considered in Writ Petition Nos. 20344 to 20421/1995 and connected matters (disposed of on 27/7/1995) : ILR1995KAR2599 and rejected. Henc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1202; 1988(1)KarLJ452
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these Writ Petitions referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge, the question for consideration is, whether Section 43(2) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioners are liquor merchants possessing licences issued under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that, on an inspection of the licenced shop premises of the petitioner in WP. 11715/81, the authorities found excess and unaccounted stock of 29.730 litres of IML and consequently seized the entire stock of liquor under Section 43(2) of the Act for the alleged offence under Sections 32 & 36(b) of the Act. The stock of liquor, thus seized, included the liquor which the petitioner had lawful authority to possess. Ultimately an order was made on 9-6-1981 (Annexure-C) permitting compounding of the offence, by levying a compounding fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR421; 1996(3)KarLJ268
Bharuka, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Excise Commissioner for setting aside the order dated 25.11.1992 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal whereby it has been directed that the stock of arrack and other articles seized under the provisions of Section 52 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (the Act, for short) be returned to the first respondent.2. Admittedly the first respondent was the successful bidder in the excise auction held in the excise year 1987-88 in Taluks of Udupi, Kundapur and Belthangadi of Dakshina Kannada District. On 9.9.1987 the Sub-Inspector of Police for Udupi Town Police Station along with some other officers visited the godown of the contesting respondent (the Licensee, for short) and seized arrack found stored in cans. Subsequently a police case was instituted against him under ' Section 34 of the Act in Crime No. 134 of 1987 of Udupi Town Police Station. Seizure was also reported to the Excise Officers as provided under Section 43A of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. Heard2. This is a State's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section. 32, 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act.3. Heard the leaned HCGP Sri-Raja Subramanya Bhat.4. The counsel for the respondent/accused is absent.5. The perusal of the records shows that the Inspector of Excise, Shimoga, initiated investigation against the accused and conducted a raid at 11.45 a.m. on 25.09.1998 and found the respondent/accused was In possession of 8.640 liter of non-tax paid Indian liquor. It was stored in front of his house situate at Tamillians Street, Mattur village/ Shimoga Taluk. On being questioned, the accused failed to produce any documents regarding payment of tax and excise over the quantity of liquor in his possession. Consequently, it was seized.6. On culmination of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and accused was put to that. The Inspector of Excise concerned did not produce any witness during the trial to support the charge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1672; 1990(1)KarLJ77
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned High Court Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents. Copies of the petition with annexures be furnished to him.2. As this petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order in question by way of Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petition is heard for final disposal.3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 15-7-1989 bearing No. EXE. CR. No. 5/1989 Annexure-E passed by the Authorised Officer and the Superintendent of Excise, Bijapur District, Bijapur, confiscating the vehicle bearing No. CNJ.6110 and 264.240 litres of I.M.L. seized by the C.P.I. Jamkhandi vide Excise Cr.No.5/89 dated 15-7-1989 under Section 43A(2) of Karnataka Excise (Second Amendment) Act 1987.4. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 27th October 1989 passed by the Session...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(4)KarLJ601
ORDER1. This petition filed challenging the registration of FIR in Cr. No. 97 of 2001 by the Inspector of Ashoknagar Police and continuation of investigation in the said case. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor-gate Sub-Division on 10-2-2001 made surprise check of the premises of E.T. Club, Residency Road, Bangalore and found that as many as 26 children ranging age group between 13 to 19 wore being served with liquor. The petitioners 1, 4 and 2 are the accused who were said to be the Managing Committee Members of the Club and petitioners 3, 5 and 6 are the employees who said to have served the liquors to the children, contrary to the provisions of Sections 36(1)(g) and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act read with Rules 10(1)(e) and 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Under the provisions of Section 36(1)(g) of the Act shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred...
Tag this Judgment!