Karnataka High Court
Sri Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 876 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI. RANGAPPA,
S/O LATE MARIYAPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O LAKYA VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RURAL POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY
signed by R THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MANJUNATHA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Location:
HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2019
PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.82/2018 BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
03.05.2018, PASSED IN C.C.NO.230/2017 BY THE 1ST
ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.K.S.Ganesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.230/2017 dated 03.05.2018 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.82/2018 dated 30.12.2019 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru for the offence punishable under Section 32 and 34 of Karnataka Exercise Act.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
3.1. Upon the credible information received by K.N.Erappa, who was the Police Sub Inspector and officer- -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 in-charge of the Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru on 01.12.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., as per the information, he formed a raid team and proceeded to the spot, after obtaining necessary search warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chikkamagaluru.
3.2. As soon as he visited Lakya Grama Panchayat office, he requested two independent persons to act as panchas for the intended raid. The entire raid team proceeded further to the house of the accused. In the presence of panchas therein, searched the house of the accused. The raid team was successful in seizing 90 ml's. of 72 'captain martin' special whisky which was valued for a sum of Rs.1,910/-. They apprehended the accused and told him to produce the license for possessing the said sachets. There was no license to possess the said sachets whereby, the head of the raid team treated it as illegal liquor and seized the same in the presence of the panch witnesses and drew a spot and seizure mahazar. The seizure proceedings were also photographed. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 3.3. Later on, the head of the raid team went to the the Police Station at Chikkamagaluru and handed over the seized liquor sachets and gave a report along with the custody of the accused to the Station House Officer.
3.4. The Station House Officer registered a case for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Exercise Act and arrested the accused. FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate along with the accused and request was made to retain the seized liquor sachets for the purpose of further investigation. Accused was remanded to the judicial custody and seized liquor sachets were permitted to be retained by the Station House Officer for the purpose of investigation. Thereafter, the detailed investigation has been conducted by the Chikkamagaluru Rural Police and charge sheet was filed against the accused.
4. On receipt of the charge sheet, presence of the accused was secured and after complying the requirements of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., accused was tried -5- NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Exercise Act and also under Section 273 of IPC. Plea was recorded, accused pleased not guilty. Therefore, trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution chose to examine C.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 9 as P.Ws.1 to 5. As many as ten documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10 on behalf of the prosecution comprising of photograph as Ex.P.1, mahazar as Ex.P.2, letter issued by Rural Police of Chikkamgaluru as Ex.P.3, assessment extract as Ex.P.4, statement of L.A.Dananjayyamurthy as Ex.P.5, police notice as Ex.P.6, complaint as Ex.P.7, FIR as Ex.P.7, FIR as Ex.P.8, search warrant as Ex.P.9 and FSL report as Ex.P.10. Material object was marked as MO.1. C.W.8 could not be examined before the Trial Court as he was dead by the time the trial was commenced. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up C.Ws.4 to 6 and trial was concluded.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
6. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, the accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.
7. Accused did not chose to place on record his version about the incident by filing the written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C. nor adduced any evidence.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties and taking note the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory marked at Ex.P.10, noting that each of the samples of 72 sachets contained 42.8% of alcohol and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Exercise Act and sentenced the accused to under go one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Exercise Act and ordered to pay fine in a sum of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of three months. So -7- NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 also for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the Karnataka Exercise Act. Benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. was also accorded and both the sentence was ordered to run concurrently by the learned Trial Magistrate.
9. Thereafter, accused preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Magistrate in Criminal Appeal No.82/2018.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the parties in detail, in the light of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. After reappreciating the material evidence on record, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court concurred with the finding recorded by learned Trial Magistrate that accused without license, possessed the samples drawn under the panchanama marked at MO.1 and noticing the fact that seizure mahazar has properly proved, dismissed -8- NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 the appeal of the accused by confirming the judgment of the learned Trial Magistrate.
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision.
12. Sri.K.S.Ganesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and has also wrongly convicted the accused.
13. He pointed out that in photograph marked at Ex.P.1, it is clearly visible that there is a bag wherein, the alleged sachets were stored, has not been produced before the Court which has not been properly appreciated by learned Trial Magistrate.
14. He pointed out that pancha witnesses though supported the case of the prosecution, are nothing but the stock witnesses. Among them P.W.2 has partly supported -9- NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021 the case of the prosecution and specifically deposed in examination-in-chief itself that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.2.
15. He also pointed out in his cross-examination by the accused, he has specifically admitted that as per the directions of the police, he has signed a document in Gram panchayat office and was also present when the photograph was taken.
16. He further pointed out that P.W.3 is an interested witness and therefore, his evidence needs to be independently appreciated by the learned Trial Magistrate which has not been properly appreciated and sought for allowing the revision petition.
17. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments.
18. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
19. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that P.W.1 and 2 are found in photograph marked at Ex.P.1. Admittedly, Ex.P.1 - photograph is taken in the house of the accused. A bag is seen in Ex.P.1 where under, sachets were found. P.W.3 along with sub staffs and two more other persons were also seen in Ex.P.1.
20. Contents of the spot mahazar marked at Ex.P.2 would go to show that there was credible information received by P.W.3 and thereafter, he has intimated official superiors and obtained search warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, raid team proceeded to Lakya Village and visited Grama Panchayat office wherein, P.W.3 secured the presence of P.W.1 and 2 and then proceeded to the house of the accused. Upon search, 72 'captain martin' special whisky sachets were found without proper documents. Accordingly, they were seized by P.W.3.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
21. It is pertinent to note that if at all, if P.W.3 had any malafide intention in falsely implicating the accused, why would he implant 72 numbers of sachets is the question that remains unanswered on behalf of the accused.
22. Admittedly, there is no previous enmity or animosity nurtured by P.W.2 and 3 so also to falsely implicate the accused in the case.
23. These aspects of the matter when viewed cumulatively, coupled with the report given by the FSL marked at Ex.P.10, it is crystal clear that accused did possess 72 'captain martin' special whisky sachets.
24. No explanation what so ever is forth coming from the accused in this regard. In the accused statement, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and did not place on record any evidence so as to improbabilise the case of the prosecution.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25003 CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
25. Under such circumstances, the order of conviction passed by learned Trial Magistrate believing the prosecution case confirmed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court, that too, in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused needs to be maintained.
26. This would take this Court to the next question as to whether the sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate is just and proper.
27. As could be seen from the sentence passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court, learned Trial Magistrate has imposed minimum imprisonment and fine for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Exercise Act. Therefore, hardly there is any scope for this Court to admit the revision for further consideration.
28. Accordingly, the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
CRL.RP No. 876 of 2021
ORDER
i. Admission declined.
ii. Revision petition is dismissed as it is
meritless.
iii. Time is granted for the accused to surrender before the learned Trial Magistrate to serve the remaining part of the sentence till 25.07.2024. iv. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT: BHK