ORDER :

The present petitioners, as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, were tried by the Court of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”) in C.C.No.673/2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Excise Act”) and were convicted for the said offences by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18-12-2012.

Aggrieved by the same, both the accused persons preferred a Criminal Appeal in the Court of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.145/2012.

The learned Sessions Judge’s Court in its judgment dated 26-06-2013 dismissed the appeal filed by both the accused and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in C.C.No.673/2010 dated 18-12-2012. It is challenging the judgments passed by both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court, both the accused have preferred these two revision petitions.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court is that, on 17-07-2010, at about 10:15 a.m., the present petitioner – Sri. Nagaraju, who was accused No.1 in the Trial Court along with one Sri. Devaraju who was accused No.2 in the Trial Court were found carrying in total 66 (sixty-six) bottles of three varieties of whisky at Anantharamaiah Circle, Malavalli, which is a public place, within the limits of the complainant Police Station and thus have committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Excise Act.

3. In order to prove the alleged guilt against the accused persons, the prosecution got examined in all five witnesses from PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-4. Neither any witness was examined nor any documents were marked as Exhibits from the side of the accused persons.

4. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 18-12-2012 convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Excise Act and sentenced them accordingly.

As observed above, both the accused persons preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge’s Court, which after hearing both side, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the judgments of both the Trial Court as well the Sessions Judge’s Court, both the accused persons are before this Court, in the present revision petitions.

5. The respondent -State is being represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused persons and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/complainant are appearing physically before the Court.

7. The Trial Court and the Sessions Judge’s Court’s records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

8. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Sessions Judge’s Court’s records.

9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the only point that arise for my consideration in this revision petition is :

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli, dated 18-12-2012, in C.C.No.673/2010, which was further confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Mandya in Criminal Appeal No.145/2012, warrants any interference at the hands of this Court ?

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, in his brief argument submitted that, the conviction of the accused persons by the Trial Court since is solely based upon t