- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49550 CRL.RP No. 1148 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. T.S. SURESH S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT MARLE THIMMANAHALLI MARLE POST -577 101. CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.D.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY TOWN POLICE CHIKKAMAGALURU REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.08.2019, PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.9/2018 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 22.12.2017 IN C.C.NO.778/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49550 CRL.RP No. 1148 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 01.08.019 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.9/2018 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru, in C.C.no.778/2016, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri V.D. Raviraj, learned counsel for petitioner (accused no.1) submitted solitary ground of challenge against impugned judgments was that search conducted on person of accused was not in compliance with Sections 53 and 54 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, ('Act', for short) and therefore, conviction of accused for offences punishable under Act, would not sustain. 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.L. Subhayya v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49550 CRL.RP No. 1148 of 2019 711. It was submitted, alleged search in instant case was conducted by Investigating Officer in presence of Panchas. However, same was without obtaining search warrant. Though Section 54 of Act, provides for search by Police Inspector in-charge of Police Station without warrant, same can be only on recording of reason that accused was likely to escape in case, opportunity is granted for securing search warrant. Perusal of complaint does not disclose compliance with either Sections 53 or 54 of Act. On above ground sought for allowing revision petition. 4. On other hand, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State opposed petition. It was submitted, both Courts had arrived at concurrent conclusions and same cannot be interfered in revision petition. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgments as well as trial Court record. 6. From above, it is seen, this revision petition is by accused no.1 challenging concurrent judgments of conviction and order of sentences for offence punishable under Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49550 CRL.RP No. 1148 of 2019 53 and 54 of Act. In case of K.L. Subhayya's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that failure to comply with Sections 53 or 54 of Act, would be fatal to prosecution case. 7. A bare perusal of complaint does not disclose any reason or apprehension about likelihood of accused escaping in case opportunity is provided before securing search warrant. Failure to record reasons for non-compliance with Sections 53 and 54 of Act, which were held mandatory by Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision referred to, impugned judgments would be totally contrary to law. Hence, revision petition is allowed; concurrent judgments of conviction and order of sentences dated 01.08.019 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.9/2018 and dated 22.12.2017 passed by learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru, in C.C.no.778/2016 are set aside, acquitting petitioner/accused no.1 of offences alleged. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20