The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of procedural provisions in the investigation, lack of corroboration by independent witnesses, and delay in sending seized samples for examination can render the prosecution's case weak and lead to the setting aside of the judgment of conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This is an appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in S.C. No.64 of 2011 wherein the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the 'KE Act', for brevity)

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: PW-1-H.K. Pathan, Police Inspector of Special Police Station, based on the credible information received by him on 23.12.2010, summoned panchas and his staff and took them to Bendalgatti village. In the said village, he found the accused preparing illicit liquor near water tank and on seeing the police, the accused tried to escape by holding two plastic cans. He was apprehended and after enquiry, verified the spot where 5 liters of 5 cans were filled with illicit liquor apart from two cans in the hands of the accused. They also found 200 liters of 3 plastic barrels consisting of jaggery mixture for preparing illicit liquor. They also found 10 mud pots buried in the earth which also contained jaggery mixture and a motorcycle was also found and on enquiry, the accused told that he used to sell the illicit liquor by going to the village on his motorcycle and the Police Inspector removed samples of 180 ml of illicit liquor in each 7 cans and also 180 ml sample from chemical mixture from 3 barrels and 10 mud pots; they destroyed the jaggery mixtures kept in the plastic barrels and also the mud pots, seized plastic barrels, steel vessel and one pipe for distilling liquor and also a motor cycle under panchanama as per Ex.P-1 and prepared a complaint as per Ex.P-2 and produced the same to the Station House Officer, who registered a case in Crime No.81/10 for the offences punishable under Sections 328 and 273 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and under Sections 32 and 34 of the KE Act, issued FIR and after following the arrest procedure, the accused was sent to judicial remand and then sent the samples for chemical analysis; statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 6 witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and 6 documents as per Exs.P1 to P-6 and 20 material objects as per M.Os.1 to 20 were got marked. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The case of the accused is one of total denial.

4. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the KE Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 32 of the KE Act and further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 34 of KE Act and ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the following grounds:

a. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law;

b. The learned trial Judge has not at all considered the facts of the case on hand wherein the prosecution has failed to cite any independent witness to narrate the incident.

c. The trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case wherein the court has come to the conclusion that the panchanama is proved, in the absence of examination of another co-pancha, who has not been examined.

d. The