IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100110 OF 2018 (C)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VASANT VAMAN NAIK, S/O. VAMAN NAIK AGE: 51 YEARS, SHOP BUSINESS, R/O: PADMAPUR, NAGARABASTIKERI, TQ: HONAVARA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581384.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAXMESH PUTTA MATAGUPPI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580022.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR C KA O R U N R A T T O A F KA CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20

16:40:01 +0530 JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED

05.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS AND DISTRICT JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.48/2014 IN RESPECT OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32, 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND 328 OF IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED BE ACQUITTED.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/accused, who has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act read with Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo six years of imprisonment along with a fine, has approached this Court in appeal.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 25.09.2013 at around

2:30 p.m., credible information was received that the accused was selling illicit liquor in his shop. Acting on this information, the complainant, along with staff and witnesses, conducted an inspection and discovered that the appellant was in possession of illicit arrack valued at ₹1,500/-. The illicit liquor was seized in the presence of panchas, and an FIR was subsequently registered for the aforementioned offences.

3. To establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5, exhibited four documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4(a), and marked one material object, M.O.1. Upon evaluating the evidence on record, the Sessions Court found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that since the alleged offences are cognizable, the Excise Police were required to register an FIR at the outset or, at the very least, record the information in the Station House Diary before commencing the investigation. He further argued that the search was conducted without obtaining a warrant, as mandated under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, the investigation and subsequent conviction of the appellant stand vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

5. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P.4) conclusively established that the appellant was in possession of illicit arrack. He contended that the Sessions Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence did not warrant interference.

6. Upon considering the arguments of both parties and reviewing the trial court record, the key issue for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court is legally sustainable?

7. A perusal of the complaint (Ex.P.2) reveals that the Police Sub-Inspector, Excise Department, received credible information on 25.09.2013 at about 2:30 p.m. that the accused was in possession of illicit arrack and intended to sell it for unlawful gain. Acting on this information, the Excise Police cond