B.A. PATIL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused - appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Bidar sitting at Bhalki, convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under section 328 of Indian Penal Code in default, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and the accused - appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act ('Act' for short) and shall pay the fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and the accused-appellant has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act and shall pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and has further ordered that the accused is entitled for set-off for imprisonment already undergone.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution before the trial Court are that, on 19.07.2009 at about 9:00 p.m., CW.9 received the credible information that accused was selling the country made liquor in her house, he along with his staff and panchas raided the house of the accused and seized the country made liquor stored in a tyre tube for sale, knowing very well that the said country made liquor is mixed with poison and harmful to the human life and further the said accused was not having the licence and permit from the Excise Department to sell the liquor and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC read with Sections 32 and 34 of Act,

3. The trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and thereafter closure of evidence on the prosecution, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code accused denied the incriminating material against him and thereafter arguments were heard and impugned order was passed by the trial Court convicting the accused.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued and contended that the said judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law. The trial Court has committed a serious error by holding that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 328 of IPC since neither there was any material to show that the ingredients of Section 328 of IPC are applicable while convicting the accused. He has also contended that the Investigating Officer while conducting search hat not complied with the provisions of Section 53 and 54 of the Act. In order to substantiate his arguments, he also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 711. He has also further con-tended that when the raid took place, the accused ran away from that place is the case of the prosecution, the heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to show that the accused-appellant was the same person who was present in the said house. In this behalf no substantial evidence has been produced before the trial Court for the purpose of identity of the accused. It is his further contention that even though there is no substantial evidence to prove the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused and sentenced her to pay the fine. It is further contended that there is no material to show that the said house belongs to accused. In this behalf also the prosecuti