- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200063 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SANTOSH S/O CHANNU JADHAV, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KARJOL TANDA, TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585106. (THROUGH EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR VIJAYAPURA-585101). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN CRL.A NO.70/2016 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. JMFC, VIJAYAPURA IN C.C.NO.3770/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 32 OF KARNATKA EXCISE ACT 1965 & 273 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 in C.C No.3770/2013 on the file of the III Addl. JMFC at Vijayapur, and its confirmation judgment and order dated 05.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.70/2016 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, at Vijayapur, wherein Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.07.2013 the Excise Inspector after having received a credible information with regarding illegal possession of illicit liquor, went to the spot along with staffs around about 6.00 am and conducted raid on the house of the accused and found that the accused was having possessed 5 liters of illicit liquor in one yellow plastic can with intention to sell it for human consumption. Immediately, he conducted raid and seized the said illicit liquor and drawn the mahazar. After having conducted the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 4. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts have failed to consider the mandatory requirement, which was required to be followed before conducting the search and seizure on the dwelling house. As the procedure has not been followed, filing of FIR and further proceedings thereof have to be vitiated. However, the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the said settled principle of law and rendered the conviction, which are unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court and seeking intervention of this Court for the purpose of securing the ends of the justice. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 6. To substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.L.Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1979 SC 711. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent vehemently justified the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 concurrent findings of the Courts below and he further submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are appropriate and proper, there is no reason to interfere with the said findings. 8. It is further submitted that the Investigation Officer even though has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 53 of the said Act, he has followed Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the proceedings. The Courts below after having arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner found guilty of the offence, rendered the conviction which requires no interference. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below, it is necessary to state the facts in brief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.07.2013, the Excise Inspector and his staff have received a credible information that the accused was in possession of 5 liters of illicit liquor and selling the same for human consumption. Having received the same, he went to the spot and conducted the raid, seized the illicit liquor in the presence of the pancha witnesses. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 11. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to have a cursor look upon the documents produced by the prosecution. Ex.P.2 would indicate that it is a complaint stated to have addressed to the jurisdictional Magistrate. However, the procedure which was required to be followed has not been followed. Though the FIR has been registered, no complaint was filed in respect of the offences stated supra. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that an oral information in respect of cognizable offence shall - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 be reduced into writing. In the absence of such oral information, registration of the FIR and consequential proceedings has to be vitiated for the reason that in the absence of such information, FIR cannot be registered. 12. Since both the Courts have committed error in not considering the said aspect, the impugned judgment has been passed which is required to be set aside. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The petition is allowed. II. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed in C.C No.3770/2013 by the III Addl. JMFC at Vijayapur, and the judgment and order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.70/2016 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, at Vijayapur are set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424 CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018 III. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences under Section 32 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 273 of IPC. IV. Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:PK