IMPORTANT POINT
The registration of FIR based on panchanama was erroneous, rendering the conviction ineffective. Compliance with procedural requirements under Cr.P.C. is crucial for the admissibility of evidence and subsequent proceedings.

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 26.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 29.12.2015 in C.C.No.332/2009 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur and its confirmation judgment and order dated 12.01.2021 in Crl.A.No.12/2016 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, Sitting at Hunsur seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 34 and 38A of Karnataka Excise Act (for short ‘K.E.’Act).

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.11.2008 at about 10.15 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of Hunsur Excise Range was deputed on patrolling duty along with his staff near Challahalli Village. They have received credible information that the accused were proceeding on the motorbike bearing Reg. No.KA09X4142 with box containing the liquor. The officials of the Excise Hunsuru Range have intercepted the said vehicle and enquired about the permit and other related documents to transport the said liquor. When the satisfactory answer was not obtained by them, the Sub-Inspector of Excise has arrested the accused and interrogated them and also seized the items which were being carried by the accused. After having seized the said liquor, the Sub-Inspector took the samples of the said liquor for sending the same to FSL for chemical analysis. As per the averments of the complaint, 48 bottles of liquor have been seized by the Sub-Inspector and each bottle containing 180 ml of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey. The case came to be registered against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent police have conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to P8 and also identified as M.O.Nos.1 to 28. On the other hand, two documents were got exhibited as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 on behalf of the petitioners.

5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

6. Heard Sri. Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in convicting the petitioners is contrary to the evidence and settled principles of Law. Therefore, the impugned judgments are required to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 who is the Investigating Officer which discloses that the FIR was registered on 24.11.2008 at about 10.15 a.m. However, the search and seizure was conducted between 8.30 a.m. to 8.45 a.m. i.e., before registration of FIR, the search and seizure was conducted which is against to the settled principles of law. Therefore, the registration of FIR after conducting search and seizure itself is bad in law and the Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR.

9. It is further submitted that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to P8 in accordance with law. Whenever there is a dispute regarding admission of the document, the prosecution must have complied Section 294(3) of Cr.P.C. In the absence of the said compliance, the document ought not to have been considered for the purpose of anal