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-
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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
NC: 2024:KHC:25003
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
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
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
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
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
CT: BHK
