Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the State.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 12.05.2010

at about 12.00 p.m, the respondent have conducted the raid on

the house of this petitioner and they found illegally possessed 5

liters of illicit liquor and 270 liter of jaggery substance which was

kept for preparing the illicit liquor without having any permit.

Based on the complaint, the case was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 11, 14(2), 32 and 34 of the

Karnataka Excise Act.

3.

The prosecution in order to prove the charges

leveled against the petitioner, relied upon the evidence of PW1

to 5 and also the documents at Ex.P1 to P6 and MO1 and MO2

are also marked. The learned Trial Judge after considering both

the oral and documentary evidence convicted the petitioner for

the aforesaid offences and same was challenged before the

3

Appellate Court and the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.916/2011

confirmed the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. Hence,

the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court is perverse since these findings are against the

material available on record. The counsel for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that PW1 and PW5 in their cross-

examination categorically deposed that no one was there in the

house of the petitioner and the house was locked but PW4 says

that some ladies were there in the house and PW3 also says that

some villagers were there in that house and not any family

members of the petitioner and all these contradictions are not

considered by both the Courts and hence, the order passed by

the Trial Court is perverse and not based on the material

available on record. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5.

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State would submit that the eye-witnesses who have been

examined before the Trial Court i.e., PW2 and PW49s evidences

are clear that they were part of the raid and in their presence,

4

MO1 and MO2 were seized and this petitioner ran away from the

spot and hence, the prosecution has proved the case against the

petitioner. Apart from that PW1, 3 and 5 are the official

witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded when there is

no contradictions, hence, finding of the Trial Court as well as

reconsideration made by the Appellate Court will not suffers from

any illegality, correctness and proprietary of the order.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also in reply to

the arguments of the learned counsel for the State would submit

that PW2 is a stock witness and he categorically admitted that

he also part of the earlier raid. PW4 was also earlier worked with

the contractors of the Excise Department and hence, their

evidence also cannot be believed.

7.

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on

record the point that would arise for consideration is:

1. Whether the Trial Court as well as Appellate

Court have committed an error in appreciating the

material available on record and passed any

5

perverse order which requires exercising of the

revisional powers?

2. What order?

Point No.1:

8.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the

prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 5 and

Ex.P1 to P6. PW1 is the Guard of the Excise Department,

according to him, he was also the part of the raid and he was

subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-examination, in

paragraph 4, he categorically admits that when they conducted

the raid in the house of this petitioner, nobody was there in the

house and the house was locked. But only on enquiry, the

villagers told that the said place belongs to this petitioner. He

also admits that surrou