- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100079 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: JAYARAJ S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KOVER, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O. VADDAL VILLAGE, TQ. SIRSI(N.K). …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, BANAVASI POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.11.2012 PASSED BY I-ADDL. JMFC COURT, SIRSI IN C.C.NO.217/2009 AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 06.02.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.162/2012 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI FOR THE OFFENCES P/UNDER SECTION 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND SECTION 273 OF IPC, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.08 11:07:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and 273 IPC in CC No.217/2009 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of further period of one month imprisonment which got confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.162/2012 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1 Upon the credible information received by head of the raid party viz., Sri.Kiran Basavannappa Naik, PSI, Banavasi that somebody is transporting illicit liquor. Accordingly, he formed the raid team comprising of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 himself, his sub-staff and two independent panchas and all of them left the station at 9.40 p.m. and reached a jungle road near Kaalangi pond at about 10.15 p.m. When they have kept a watch for the suspect, around 10.30 p.m. they spotted a person with a white coloured plastic can on his shoulder. On inquiry, he revealed his name as Jairaj S/o Hanumanthappa Kovera, aged about 28 years. When the head of the raid party enquired as to what are the contents of the said plastic can, he did not answer properly and thereafter they opened the lid and smelt the contents of plastic can. It was found that it is illicit liquor. 3.2 Admittedly, said Jairaj did not possess any pass or license to transport the same and therefore they seized the can and also took out 180ml liquid from the said can as sample and sealed the same. Panchanama was drafted on the spot. There after a report came to be placed on record with the Banavasi Police station. 3.3 Based on which, case came to be registered in Crime No.68 of 2008 by Banavasi Police station, Uttar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 Kannada District and accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. 3.4 After thorough investigation and obtaining the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to the seized sample vide Exhibit P4, charge sheet came to be filed. 3.5 Accused did not plead guilty and stood for trial. 3.6 Learned trial Magistrate noted that panchanama stood proved not only by the examination of the head of the raid party but also independent witnesses to panchanama who are examined as PW2 and PW3. PW.4- Gururaj Chandrappa, PW.5-Shivanna, PW6-Teja P also supported the case of the prosecution in toto. 3.7 Thereafter, trial judge recorded the accused statement, wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory substances. Sample bottle was marked as M.O.1 for which there was no proper answer given by the accused while recording the accused statement. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 3.8 Based on the material evidence placed on record, learned trial judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 3.9 Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.162/2012. 3.10 Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and re-appreciated the material evidence on record and dismissed the appeal. 4. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 5. Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that in the absence of placing the entire seized liquor and regular scan from which the sample at M.O.1 said to have been drawn, the trial Judge ought not to have convicted the accused for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 offence under section 34(c) of Karnataka Excise Act, especially in the absence of any charge being framed under section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act which has been mechanically upheld by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y, Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP supports the impugned order and also points out that though the charge has been framed under Section 273 IPC, since the trial judge himself has acquitted the accused for offence under section 273 IPC and convicted only for the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, there is sufficient application of judicial mind into the matter and therefore impugned orders are perfectly valid and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that based on the credible information, raid - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 team came to be formed by the PSI and they have spotted the accused at about 10:30 PM near Kaalangi pond. On enquiry, the can carried by the accused has been seized and content thereof has been treated as illicit liquor. Sample drawn at M.O.1 under the exhibit P1-mahajor would amply establish that the accused was carrying the illicit liquor. 9. Admittedly, accused did not posses any pass or license to posses the same. FSL report marked at exhibit P.4 would confirm the existence of presence of the alcohol and the contents were not safe for human consumption. Panch witnesses having supported the case of the prosecution in proving exhibit P1 is taken note of by the learned trial Judge while passing an order of conviction. 10. Cumulative consideration of the above facts was sufficient enough to convict the accused for the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act. 11. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court re- appreciated the said evidence on record and by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 supplementing few more reasons, upheld the order of conviction. 12. As is rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 273 of IPC shows that there is sufficient application of judicial mind in the matter. Minimum sentence of one year and minimum fine of Rs.10,000/- being imposed, hardly there is any scope for interference in the impugned orders by this Court in this revision, given the scope of revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity and patent factual error so as to interfere in the impugned orders. 14. Accordingly, the following order. ORDER (i) Revision petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5824 CRL.RP No. 100079 of 2019 (ii) Accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence till 30.04.2025. (iii) Office is directed to return the trial Court records along with the copy of this order forthwith. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 39