A conviction based on statutory non-compliance regarding search and seizure procedures and the improper registration of an F.I.R. is void, necessitating acquittal of the accused.

ORDER :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

The petitioner, who is the sole accused, has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ' Cr.P.C.'), challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, in Criminal Case No.119 of 2016 dated 3-8-2024 and confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in Criminal Appeal No.5124 of 2024 dated 5-3-2025.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent– State is the complainant before the trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 22-12-2015 in the evening hours, when the complainant, the Excise Inspector of Kundgol was on patrolling duty within the limits of Samshi Village, received credible information regarding illegal sale of liquor bottles near Kiran Shop belonging to one Gurunath Koliwada, located on Magadi-Yarebudihal at Hiregunjal Village. Hence, he secured his sub-staff and panchas and proceeded to the intended spot and conducted raid on the petitioner and seized 140 bottles of Old Tavern Whiskey (90 ml each), 96 bottles of Hayward's Cheers (90 ml each), 318 tetra packs of PM Rare Blend of Indian Whisky and Scotch (180 ml each) and 48 tetra packs of Old Tavern Whiskey (180 ml each). Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint, which led to registration of First Information Report and investigation.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3, got marked eight documents as per Exs.P1 to 8 and got marked five material objects as per MOs.1 to 5.

5. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences stated supra.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

8. Heard Sri Sadyojat R. Baligattimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court in convicting the petitioner is contrary to the findings and settled principles of law. Therefore, the impugned judgments are required to be set aside.

Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of PW1, Investigating Officer, discloses that F.I.R. was registered on 22-12-2015 at about 8:30 p.m. However, the search and seizure was conducted between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., on the same day, i.e. before registration of F.I.R., the search and seizure was conducted which is against the settled principles of law. Therefore, the registration of F.I.R. after conducting search and seizure itself is bad in law and the Courts below ought not to have acted upon such F.I.R. He further contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed error in appreciating the records which are marked as Exs.P1 to 8.

Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has not properly recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . In the absence of recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C ., it is not appropriate to record the conviction.

However, the trial Court recorded the conviction without following