This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1

and 2 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside the

judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the

learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunagund (herein after

referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in C.C.No.407/2010 for an offence

punishable under Section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for

short ‘K.E. Act’) and the same was upheld by the learned District

3

and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (herein after referred to as the

‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.64/2012 dated 13.09.2013.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3.

The parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the

trial Court.

4.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 30.03.2010 at

about 7:45 pm the complainant-PSI Hungund Police Station(PW-3)

received credible information that the accused are selling liquor in

the Prakash Dhaba without any valid licence. When the raid was

conducted, the accused were found in possession of liquor bottles of

different brands worth Rs.2,520/- and selling them without any

licence and thereby committed an offence under Section 34 of the

KE Act. At the time of the raid, one person, who was sitting on the

counter, ran away and PW-3 arrested accused No.1, who was found

selling liquor to customers. On the basis of the report filed by PW-

3, FIR was registered. Subsequently, charge sheet came to be

filed. After taking cognizance, the Trial Court framed the charge to

4

which the accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be

tried.

In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined six

witnesses and got marked four documents and eight material

objects. After recording the evidence, the statement of the accused

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The case of the

accused is one of total denial and did not lead any defence

evidence. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court found the

accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and convicted them for an offence under

Section 34 of KE Act and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the

Sessions Court in an appeal wherein the Appellate Court confirmed

the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the

trial Court. Hence, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court

challenging the same.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly argued

on the point that, the trial Court and the Appellate Court committed

an error in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

5

though the Police Officials went to the spot without obtaining the

search warrant under Section 53 of the K.E. Act. Even if they were

not able to get the warrant of search, they ought to have recorded

the reason for not obtaining the warrant as required under Section

54 of the K.E. Act. Therefore, the very registering of the FIR and

the complaint is not sustainable and thereby, the conviction on that

point is not sustainable in the law. Therefore, he prayed for setting

aside the impugned judgments passed by the courts below.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon

the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal

Appeal Nos.2805/2009 and 2892/2012 and also the judgment of

this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.2315/2013 disposed of

on 19.07.2022.

7.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

supported the judgments of both the Courts below and contended

that the question of obtaining the search warrant and recording the

reasons for not obtaining the search warrant has not been raised by

the petitioners before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

Even this question was not raised in the cross examination of PW-1.

6

Therefore, it cannot be accepted and hence the evidence of the

witnesses clearly supports th