- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2018 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PUTTUR RANGE, PUTTUR D.K., MANGALURU DISTRICT RE.P BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY MR. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP) AND: RAJESH RAI S/O NARAYANA RAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MADKA HOUSE, KARNOOR PSOT, NETTANIGE MUDNOORU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K- 574 211. …RESPONDENT (BY MRS. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5001/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. AND Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED IN C.C.NO.805/2009 BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K., ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND SECTION 273 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.5001/2018 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore sitting at Puttur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., in C.C.No.805/2009 dated 18.01.2017. 2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that: Based on the credible information, the Inspector of Excise -PW.8 along with panchas conducted a raid on the house of the accused bearing door No.69 of Alangooradka, Olamagru Village, Puttur Taluk on the intervening night of 26/27.04.2018. It is the case of the complainant that upon seeing the Excise - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 officials, the accused fled away from the court yard of the house through the back door of the house. Thereafter, on suspicion, PW.8 prepared a search memo in the house, in the presence of PW1-the independent pancha and other officials. They found a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KA-19/P-6310 on the court yard and found 4 cotton boxes inside the said car and also 192 quarter bottles of illicit liquors. On further search in the house, they found 32 carton boxes, 1536 bottles of spurious liquors namely original choice Deluxe Whiskey and Brandy, 100 liters of blended liquors in a plastic barrel, 210 liters of spirit in 6 Cans, 6 liters of essence, 1000 labels of original choice Deluxe Whiskey etc. The PW.8 seized all the materials under a seizure memo Ex.P1. Thereafter, he registered a suo moto case against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 273 of the IPC in Cr.No.1/2008. Later, PW.8 conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Act before the learned Magistrate. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 3. After securing the presence of the accused, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and farmed charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences along with Section 273 of IPC. 4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses i.e., PW.1 to PW.8 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 so also got identified 3 material objections i.e., MOs.1 to 3. 5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him vide judgment dated 18.01.2017 in C.C.No.805/2009. 6. However the State has challenged the said judgment before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.5001/2018. 7. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.805/2009. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 8. I have heard learned HCGP Sri Rajath Subramanya for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Smt. Haleema Ameen for the respondent-accused. 9. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred while acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against him without appreciating the evidence in a right perspective. He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1 i.e., independent pancha witness clearly corroborates with the evidence of PW.8-Investigation Officer in respect of the raid conducted in the house of the accused and also about the seizure of the spurious liquors. Further, in the evidence of PW.6, she has stated that she sold her house to the accused, where the spurious liquors seized. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 petition and convict the accused for the charges leveled against him. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- accused submitted that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after perusal of the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgments, which do not call for interference at the hands of this Court. She contended that PW.1-independent pancha witness totally failed to identify the accused-respondent before the trial Court. She further contended that, the prosecution also failed to prove that the house where the illicit liquors said to have been seized belongs to the accused. In such circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly, both the Courts below passed well reasoned judgments. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the revision petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having given my anxious consideration to the documents made available before me including the judgments - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the only point that arises for my consideration is: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.805/2009?" 12. On careful scrutiny of the documents, it could be gathered that PW.1-the independent pancha witness for the seizure of the illicit liquors under Ex.P1 has categorically admitted in his evidence that he is unable to identify the accused. Further, though the prosecution has claimed that house No.69 situated at Alangooradka, Olamagru Village, Puttur Taluk belongs to the accused, there is no such authenticated documents placed by the prosecution to prove the same except placing Ex.P2-sale agreement executed between PW.6, owner of the house and the accused. However, the sale deed of the house stands in the name of PW.6, the owner. On perusal of the evidence of PW.6, in her cross- examination, she has categorically admitted that she was not aware whether she handed over the possession of the house to the accused on the date of the agreement. In such circumstances, the recovery effected by PW.8 in the said house cannot be held against the accused. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13218 CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018 13. As stated supra, the material witnesses PW.1, PW.6 and PW.8 are failed to identify the accused on the date of the incident on the spot. In such circumstances, the prosecution also failed to prove the presence of the accused in the alleged spot of incident. Hence, I am of the considered view that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Nevertheless, this revision petition being filed by the State against the concurrent finding of the acquittal judgments passed by both the Courts below, interference in the said judgments do not call for unless the prosecution/appellant- State points out perversity in the judgments as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. In that view of the matter, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition preferred by the State is dismissed. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21