JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The appellants-accused 1 to 11 have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2012 passed in S.C. No. 7/2011 on the file of the learned District and Session Judge, Uttarka Kannada, Karwar (for short referred to as 'the trial Court')) convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 34 of The Karnataka Excise Act (for short referred to as 'the Act'), while acquitting him for the offences punishable under Section 378 of IPC and under Sections 11 and 32 of the Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. M.L. Vanti for the appellants and the learned AGA-Sri. Vinayak Kulkarni for respondent-State.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution in brief is that, on 22.10.2009 at 10.00 pm accused 1 to 12 found to have stocked liquor worth Rs. 41,600/- and were transporting the same without any licence or permit and the said liquor was containing the substance which was harmful to the human life and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 328 of IPC and under Sections 11,32,31 and 42 (A) of the Act.

4. It is contended that PW.5 was working as Circle Inspector, received credible information that a group of persons are transporting illicit liquor without any licence or permit, near Kumata Railway Station. Immediately he along with his staff held a raid and could apprehend accused Nos. 1 to 3, while transporting such liquor, but the other accused who were at the spot, managed to ran away from the spot. On inquiry, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have revealed the names of the other accused. The illicit liquor which was being transported was seized under the Mahazar Ex. P.1. A report in this regard was submitted and the first information report was registered against 12 accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 32, 34, and 43(A) of the Act. After investigation a charge sheet was filed for the said offences.

5. When the matter was pending before the jurisdictional magistrate, it was found that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC and the accused were committed to the Special Court/trial Court. The trial Court summoned the accused and the charges were framed. Accused have denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses and got marked 4 documents and identified 9 material objects, in support of its contention. Accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defense.

6. Accused No. 12 died during trial and the case against him was abated. Trial Court after taking into consideration all these material on records came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No. 1 to 11 for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the Act and convicted them with imprisonment and fine, while acquitting them for the offences punishable under Section 328 of IPC and Sections 11 and 32 of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos. 1 to 11 have preferred this appeal on various grounds.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is perverse and without any basis. There is absolutely no material placed before the Court to prove the commission of the offence under Section 34 of the Act. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the mandatory requirements of law were not followed by the Investigating Officer which has vitiated the seizer of the contraband. Learned counsel submitted that PW.5 even though stated that he had received credible information about commission of the offence, he has not registered the first information as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. He also submitted that there is no compliance of Section 54 of the Act. PW.5 never recorded regarding the cred