- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100143 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NEELAPPA S/O. DESHAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. POST: HIREMAGI TANDA, TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH EXCISE INSPECTOR, HUNAGUND POLICE STATION, NOW R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.RP., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14/2018 BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED IN C.C. NO. 668/2012 BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUNAGUND AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1) OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND SECTION 273 OF IPC. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri B.G. Indi representing Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.668/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 32(1) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under: “The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 32(1) of K.E. Act in default for payment of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 273of IPC. in default to pay fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. All the sentences shall run concurrently.” 3. Validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned before the District Court in Crl.A.No.14/2018 and validity of the impugned order upheld. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: On 28.07.2011 at about 7:30 pm, at Ganguru village near Government Bus Stand, accused was found carrying 180 sachets containing liquor 100 ml each for the purpose of sale without licence. On credible information, Excise Inspector went to the said place along with his sub-staff and panchas; seized the liquor sachets from the possession of the accused; drew a panchanama and filed a report. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 5. A case came to the registered under Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Karnataka Excise Act, which are punishable under Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act. 6. After sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and obtaining the report, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 7. After due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences based on the oral testimony of PW-3 and 7 and documentary evidence which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-7 besides marking seized sample as M.O.1. 8. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.14/2018. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 in detail in the light of the appeal grounds and noting that accused failed to offer any explanation for the seizure of 180 sachets of 100 ml liquor under the mahazar, upheld the order of conviction and sentence through a considered judgment dated 4th January, 2023. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court. 11. Sri B.G. Indi representing Sri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to note that the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act was absent in the case on hand and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. Thus, sought for allowing the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 12. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 13. He would further contend that admittedly PW-1 to PW-3 are strangers to the accused and there was no necessity to falsely implicate the accused that too by implanting 180 sachets of 100 ml liquor which admittedly to be treated as illicit liquor as accused did not possess any permit or licence to possess the same and he was found transporting the same that too in the bus stand. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that a raid has taken place on 28.07.2011 at 7.30 pm, near the Government Bus Stand of Ganguru village based on the credible information received by PW1. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 16. PW-1 along with PW-3 had proceeded to the spot and PW-2 and another person acted as panchas. When they apprehended the accused, he was possessing 180 sachets of 100 ml illicit liquor for which he did not process any permit or licence. Therefore, the same was seized, sample was drawn out and mahazar was drawn. 17. PW-2 being the independent mahazar witness, supported the case of the prosecution in toto in corroboration to the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-3. 18. Incidentally, PW-3 being the sub-staff of Excise Department is also the carrier of the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 19. Forensic Science Laboratory report marked at Ex.P-6 amply establishes that seized liquor was illicit liquor which is unfit for human consumption. 20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement. Accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 were found against him in the case of the prosecution. But he did not offer any explanation whatsoever. 21. Further, the Trial Judge after hearing the arguments, noted that PW-1 to PW-3 being the strangers to the accused-petitioner, believed the oral testimony PW- 1 to PW-3 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-7 and M.O.1 and rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act and imposed the minimum punishment prescribed under the statue. 22. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the above evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. 23. This Court, that too in the revisional jurisdiction did not find any patent factual error nor error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders. 24. Revision grounds are not sufficient enough to hold that impugned judgments are suffering from legal infirmity or perversity. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6118 CRL.RP No. 100143 of 2023 25. Learned Trial Magistrate had ordered minimum punishment prescribed under the statute. As such, there cannot be reduction in sentence. 26. Thus, from the above discussion, following order is passed. ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of sentence till 30th April, 2025. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19