- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1697 CRL.RP No. 1521 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2024 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE INSPECTOR CHIKKABALLAPURA RANGE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) AND: SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT NO.3246, 3RD CROSS BHAGATHSINGHNAGARA VAPASANDRA CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 101. …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2023 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.55/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1697 CRL.RP No. 1521 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner/State is before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Crl.A.No.55/2021 by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura. 2. Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner/State. 3. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition narrated briefly are, according to the prosecution on 03.03.2018 at about 09.30 p. m. driver of the vehicle bearing registration number KA04-9396, namely, Ganesh, was found transporting 10 beer bottles without license and permit during election time. Therefore, FIR was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38-A, 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The vehicle which was used for transporting the liquor belonged to the respondent herein. The same was seized under a mahazar and produced before the competent officer/Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Chikkaballapur. Proceedings were initiated under Section 43A of the Act, for confiscating the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1697 CRL.RP No. 1521 of 2024 vehicle used to commit the crime and the Deputy Commissioner on 27.07.2021 had passed an order of confiscation of the seized vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein, who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question had filed Crl.A.No.55/2021 before the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 30.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that accused/Ganesh, who was charge sheeted in the present case for the aforesaid offences, was tried before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Chikkaballapura in CC No.89/2015 and was acquitted of the charge sheeted offences. Undisputedly, judgment and order of acquittal passed against the accused, who allegedly had committed the crime has attained finality. The vehicle in question is said to have been used by accused/Ganesh for committing the crime. The Appellate Court, having appreciated that the accused has been acquitted in the criminal case which was registered against him, has rightly held that the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner was not justified in ordering confiscation of the vehicle in question - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1697 CRL.RP No. 1521 of 2024 which was allegedly used to commit the crime in CC No.89/2015. In addition to the same, the Appellate Court has also observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondent, who is the registered owner of the vehicle in question had knowledge of accused committing the offence and in spite of the same, had entrusted the vehicle to the accused. Since accused, who was charge sheeted in the present case has been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him, I am of the opinion that the Appellate Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of the vehicle in question passed by the competent authority. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order. Therefore, this revision petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN