- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SHAMALA SHETTY, W/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR SHETTY, AGE 47 YEARS, R/O MANJUNATHASWAMY NILAYA, RIGHT SIDE, CHAMEGOWDA AREA, OLD TOWN, AT BHADRAVATHI - 577 301, DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.MANJULADEVI R KAMADDOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER, AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 3. INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA RANGE-2, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.20/2025 DATED 08.09.2025 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA IN NO.EXE/DTCR/470/2004-05 DATED 30.12.2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. 2. Heard Smt. Manjuladevi R Kamaddolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 3. This revision petition is filed against an order of confiscation of the vehicle and also the confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution that TATA 407 Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KA.20/A-2532 was seized by the Excise Inspector near Bidare cross, Shivamogga City on 31.05.2025 at 06.00 p.m. and driver was transporting 100 ml liquor of 200 sachets and 600 litre, 406.08 liter liquor which is banned for sale in Karnataka and so also, he was not having any permit or license to transport the same. Confiscation proceedings was concluded by respondent No.2 as per the order dated 30.12.2024 and directed confiscation of the vehicle. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the Senior Excise Inspector, Shivmogga who was detecting officer. He has supported the case of prosecution and testified his evidence. PW2 witness was examined to prove the mahazar and he is an independent witness. But he has not supported the case of prosecution and treated as hostile and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW2. The impugned order dated 30.12.2024, taken note of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 material facts of the case, seizure of the vehicle and also the articles which were seized. Respondent No.2 considering only the evidence of PW1, confiscated the vehicle. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that there was sufficient opportunity to the driver of vehicle or appellant to lodge the complaint against the concerned officers, to their superior officers, but the same was not done. The total inaction and silence speaks against the appellant and it supports the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence given by the appellant do not inspire the confidence of the Court. On the other hand, the evidence given by PW1 found trustworthy and there are no reason to disbelieve his evidence and confirmed the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision petition would vehemently contend that both respondent No.2 and also the Appellate Court committed an error in confiscating the vehicle and confirming the same. The very mahazar of seizure of vehicle was not proved and witness, who has been examined as PW2 has not supported and his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 evidence is not trustworthy evidence. Conviction only based on PW1 is an erroneous order. 6. The counsel would submits that evidence of PW1 is not gospel truth and DW1 also examined before the confiscating authority and the very owner of the vehicle is no more and hence, wife Shyamala has appeared before the authority as legal representative of the owner. The incident was occurred on 31.05.2005 and when the vehicle was seized, that is more than 25 years ago and even vehicle is going to be scrapped. However, the same has not taken note of by confiscating authority and confiscating authority only believed the evidence of PW1. 7. The counsel also would submit that even while confiscating the vehicle, the authority comes to know that even accused was acquitted and the very seizure of the articles were not proved and inspite of it, passed the order. 8. The counsel also would submit that the Appellate Court also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that PW1 evidence is trustworthy and even PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 9. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent - State would submit that in order to prove the case, examined the PW1 before the confiscating authority and his evidence is consistent and trustworthy and not having any enmity against the owner of the vehicle or against the driver. When such being the case, not committed any error and the Appellate Court also rightly considered the material available on record. Though, PW2 has turned hostile and he was treated as hostile and cross-examined and it does not require any interference. 10. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent-State, it is not in dispute that a case was registered against the driver and also not in dispute that he was acquitted in a criminal proceedings and also the fact that the very seizure was not proved before the Criminal Court and before the confiscating authority also, though examined PW1, who is an interested witness, his evidence is consistent with regard to the seizure is concerned. But his evidence is very clear only with regard to the seizure. He was the party to the raiding party and none of the other - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 independent witnesses of raiding party were examined and apart from that when the very seizure was disputed and witness examined as PW2, who is an independent witness, he did not support the case but he categorically deposes that his signature was taken in the station, when he went to the station. He did not go to the spot and in his presence, vehicle was not seized. Even articles were also not seized. When such material available on record, the confiscating authority committed an error in passing an order to confiscate the vehicle. 11. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that the very evidence of PW1 is trustworthy in paragraph No.13 and there are no reasons to disbelieve his evidence, but fails to discuss the evidence of PW2 and nowhere in the order of confirmation, the appellate court discussed the evidence of PW2 and when the very seizure of the articles, as well as the vehicle was not proved, question of confiscating the same doesn't arise. The very approach of confiscating authority as well as the Appellate Court is erroneous, when there are no cogent evidence before the Court and also to take note of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 incident was taken place in the year 2005 and confiscation proceedings was taken place in 2024, almost after 19 years and in the meanwhile, the vehicle which was seized. As rightly contented by the counsel appearing for petitioners that it would be a vehicle fit for scrap. But fails to take note of the fact that very seizure was not proved before the criminal proceedings as well as confiscating authority and ought not to have believed the exclusive evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW1 is not the gospel truth without the corroboration. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and hence, the very confiscation of vehicle and confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 - The Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shivamogga District, which was confirmed by the judgment passed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.20/2025 dated 08.09.2025 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga and are set aside. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30