ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the accused being aggrieved by the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed in C.C.No.474/2010 dated 13.04.2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siddapur (for short ‘the Trial Court) and affirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi in Criminal

Appeal No.70/2012 dated 13.12.2018.

2. Parties to this revision petition are referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.

3. That complainant by name Uddappa B. Kattikar,

P.S.I., at the relevant time submitted a complaint based upon the seizure panchanama at Ex.P.1 alleging that on 05.07.2010 at about 5.20 p.m., on receipt of credible information regarding storage and transportation of illicit liquor near Gadageri tank of Shiralagi village of Siddapur taluka, himself and his police estaff and two panchas went to the said place in a departmental jeep bearing registration No.KA-30/G-367 at about 6.30 p.m. They went to the said place and parked their jeep at a distance by screening the same. By walk they started moving towards the pond. At that point of time one person by holding a can in his hand was found moving towards the pond. He was identified as Hanamant S/o. Ratana Naik. At about 6.45 p.m., they went to catch hold him. On seeing the police, he threw away the said can and ran away from the said place. His police constables i.e., P.C. Nos.639 and 687 chased him but they could not catch hold him.

4. On opening the cap of the said can in the presence of panchas and smelled it, it was noticed that the said can was containing illicit liquor being stored in the can measuring 4 litres and it was worth Rs.800/-. For the purpose of sample, one bottle illicit liquor was taken for the purpose of chemical examination and said can was sealed.

Thus it is alleged that, the said accused i.e., the revision petitioner was found transporting the said illicit liquor and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short ‘the K.E. Act’). With these allegations he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.2 which was registered in Crime No.28/2010 of

Sirsi Police Station and criminal law was set in motion. 5. During the course of investigation accused was arrested and was enlarged on bail. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

6. Before the learned Trial Court to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined seven witnesses in the shape of PW.1 to PW.7, got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 4 and also the article seized marked at M.O. No.1 and closed the prosecution evidence.

7. On hearing the arguments of both sides and on assessment of the evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offence and imposed the sentence by directing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence for both the offences each.

8. This judgment of conviction and order of sentence was challenged by the accused by preferring an appeal before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.70/2012. The learned first appellate Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of evidence, confirmed the judgment of conviction, whereas reduced the sentence directing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the K.E. Act and so also imposed the sentence of three months for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the K.E. Act with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

9. It is the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court as well as confirmed by the first appellate Court is challenged by the revision petitioner/accused by preferring this revision petition.

10. Learned counsel Shri. S.P. Kandagal for the revision petitioner/ac