- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 853 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SAIFULLA S/O LATE DADAPEET AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 3325/14 SECOND CROSS AANEGUNDI ROAD 2ND EDIGAH, NARASIMHARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOMANNA K.P, AMICUS CURIE V/O DTD:14.01.2026) AND: STATE BY MANDI MOHALLA POLICE STATION K.T.STREET, MYSURU - 570 021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.05.2016 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.46/2013 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., with a Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2013 in CC No.793/2011 passed by the Court of Principal First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 in Crl.A.No.46/2013 passed by the Court of VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.01.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., PW3, who was the jurisdictional Food Inspector at Mysuru along with his staff and police officers conducted a raid to shop No.2362 situated near Ahmadia School, Sulthan Park Road, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru, on the basis of credible information received and found 31 Hindustan Petroleum Company Commercial gas cylinders illegally stocked in the said premises. Out of the 31 cylinders, 19 gas cylinders were filled and 12 gas cylinders were empty. The shop premises allegedly was situated in the middle of residential houses and sufficient precautionary measures were not taken by the accused to stock the gas cylinders in the premises which was taken by him on rent. It is under these circumstances, the aforesaid 31 gas cylinders were seized under panchanama at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 Ex.P1 and thereafter, complaint (Ex.P6) was lodged based on which FIR (Ex.P10) was registered against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 284, 285 and 286 of IPC. The allegation against the accused/petitioner was that he had violated the provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order, 2000' for short) and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Committees Act, 1955. 4. The petitioner in response to the summons received by him in CC No.793/2011 had appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the accused had in all examined eight charge sheet witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and had got marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to P10. The photograph of the premises to which raid was conducted was marked as MO1. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted and sentenced the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 petitioner for the charge sheeted offences. For the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. For the offences punishable under Sections 284, 285 and 286 of IPC, petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in CC No.793/2011 was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.46/2013 by judgment and order dated 30.05.2016. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that except the official witnesses, other independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that prosecution has failed to prove that the premises from which the gas cylinders were seized, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 belonged to the petitioner. He also submits that there is no material to show that PW3 was an authorized officer under the Order, 2000. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition and has argued in support of impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its charges against the accused, has in all examined eight charge sheet witnesses in the present case. PW1 and PW2 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P1 seizure mahazar. Though these witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, they have admitted their signatures found in the mahazar at Ex.P1. PW3 Mallikarjunappa, is the Food Inspector, who had conducted the raid based on credible information received by him and seized 31 commercial gas cylinders from the premises which was allegedly leased to the petitioner. PW5 to PW8 are the police officials, who were part of the raiding squad and these witnesses also have supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW3 is corroborated by the evidence of PW5 to PW8. MO1 is the photograph of the premises to which raid was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 conducted and the gas cylinders were seized. PW4/Syed Ahmed, is the brother of Syed Sardar Pasha, to whom the premises to which raid was conducted belonged. This witness has stated that his brother was in Saudi Arabia and he was looking after the property of his brother. The khata extract of the said property is produced at Ex.P9 and he has stated that this property was leased to the petitioner for carrying on the business of oil. He has also identified the petitioner in the Open Court, stating that he was the person to whom the premises was leased. The police witnesses have stated that at the time of raid, the accused who was present near the premises had ran away. All these witnesses have identified the petitioner as the person who ran away from the premises when the raid was conducted. Both the Courts having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of matter have held that the prosecution had proved the charges against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, have convicted him for the charge sheeted offences. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Lokesh and Others - ILR 2001 KAR - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 4655, has held that merely for the reason that the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution, the panchanama cannot be disbelieved if the prosecution is able to prove the same through the evidence of the official witnesses. It is trite that if the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy, even if independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, based on the evidence of official witnesses, an order of conviction can still be passed. 9. Two Courts have concurrently held the petitioner guilty for the charge sheeted offences and accordingly, have convicted him. The scope for interference by this Court against concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below in revisional jurisdiction is very narrow and unless, it is found that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is perverse or the same is passed ignoring the material evidence, in normal circumstances, this Court Shall not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 10. Insofar as the order of sentence passed against the petitioner is concerned, considering the fact that the incident in question is of the year 2009 and more than 16 years have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 lapsed thereafter, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it may not be necessary to ask the petitioner to undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed by both the Courts and on the other hand, if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner and if the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner is enhanced, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 21.01.2013 in CC No.793/2011 passed by the Court of Principal First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 in Crl.A.No.46/2013 passed by the Court of VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, against the petitioner convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Sections 284, 285 and 286 of IPC ,is confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence passed by both the Courts below against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is modified. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6815 CRL.RP No. 853 of 2016 (iv) For the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the petitioner and he is directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (v) For the offence punishable under Section 284 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. (vi) For the offence punishable under Section 285 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. (vii) For the offence punishable under Section 286 of IPC, petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. 11. The services of learned Amicus Curiae is placed on record and his fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50