IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of proper documentation and information rendered the conviction erroneous and illegal, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2012 in C.C.No.953/2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur and its confirmation judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.114/2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short ‘Act’).

2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and appellant before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.07.2007, at about 8.00 p.m. CW5/PW.3 on receiving the credible information regarding illegal possession of liquor by the accused in his house situated at Hospete Village, she secured panchas and went to the house of the accused along with staff and panchas. On seeing them, one person ran away from the place. The excise officials tried to apprehend him, however, they could not apprehend him. On search, they found two plastic bags behind the house of the accused; on checking the bags, in one bag, there were 50 sachets each containing 100 ml arrack and in another bag, four 300 ml., Kingfisher Premium Beer bottles. They seized the same under the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, by taking samples for chemical examination and returned to the office along with seized articles. On enquiry, they came to know that the person who ran away from the place is the accused herein.

4. Subsequently, on the basis of the above report, a case was registered and FIR was transmitted to the Court. During the course of investigation, investigating officer sent the sample to FSL for chemical examination. On 19.2.2008, the investigating officer obtained chemical examiner’s report and thereafter, on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 5 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4 On the other hand, the accused has not led any evidence nor marked any documents on his behalf. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. 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 petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

6. Heard Shri P.B. Umesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Ravindra B Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law.

8. It is further submitted that, the Courts below have erred in arriving at a conclusion that, the petitioner is found guilty of the offence in the absence of any documents to show that, the petitioner is the owner of the said property where the alleged raid said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer.

9. It is further contended that, the Courts below failed to appreciate the seizure mahazar properly. It is his contention that, the witnesses shown as seizure mahazar witnesses are the residents of different villages, the Investigating Officers have not secured the localites as panchas to the said seizure mahazar. It is his further contention that, the registration of FIR is b