Karnataka High Court
Anilkumar And Anr vs The State Through Manna-Ekhelli Police ... on 6 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
CRL.RP No. 200009 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200009 OF 2021
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ANILKUMAR S/O BASAPPA BASGONDA,
NOW AGED:38 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
2. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O BASAPPA BASGONDA,
NOW AGED:32 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS,
BOTH R/O. KANDGUL VILLAGE, TQ. HUMANABAD,
DIST. BIDAR-585 330.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR THE STATE THROUGH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MANNA-EKHELLI POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA TQ. HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR,
BY THE ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALBURAGI BENCH-585 103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397
R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.03.2020 OF ADDL. CIVIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
CRL.RP No. 200009 of 2021
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JMFC, HUMNABAD IN C.C.NO.82/2018
CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR OFFENCES
U/SEC. 32 AND 34 OF K.E. ACT AND SENTENCING THEM TO SI
FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND FINE OF RS.6,000/- EACH
AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.10.2020 PASSED BY II
ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, BASAVAKALYAN
BENCH IN CRL. APPEAL NO.18/2020 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.10.2020 OF ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HUMNABAD AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS ON ALL THE CHARGES FOR WHICH
THEY WERE CONVICTED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Navadagi, learned counsel for
the revision petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
2. Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2,
who suffered an order of conviction under Sections 32 and
34 of the Karnataka Excise Act in C.C.No.82/2018, on the
file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Humnabad
by judgment dated 05.03.2020, confirmed by the First
Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.18/2020 by
judgment dated 17.10.2020.
3. Facts of the case for disposal of the revision
petition are as under:
A charge sheet came to be filed by Manna-Ekhelli
Police Station, Humnabad against the revision petitioners
alleging that on 08.10.2017 Manna-Ekhelli police received
a credible information about sale of illicit liquor and
accordingly a raid team was formed and in the successful
raid, 60 U.S. Whiskey bottles each containing 90 ML worth
of Rs.1,687/- were seized in the presence of panchas.
Admittedly, said seizure is from accused No.1 and even
according to the panchanama, accused No. 2 ran away
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
from the spot and based on the information received from
accused No.1, police filed charge sheet against accused
Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections
32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
4. After due trial, both the accused persons were
convicted, which was confirmed in the criminal appeal.
Being further aggrieved by the same, accused persons are
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners
vehemently contended that both the Courts have not
properly appreciated the material evidence on record and
wrongly convicted the accused persons, resulting in
miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision
petition.
6. He would further contend that even assuming
that the entire case of the prosecution is to be accepted as
true, insofar as accused No. 2 is concerned, the only
material that is found in the charge sheet is the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
information provided by accused No.1 and there is no
independent enquiry conducted by the Investigation
Officer insofar as accused No.2 is concerned to establish
the nexus between accused No.2 and the incident and
therefore, sought for allowing the revision petition at least
insofar as the accused No. 2 is concerned.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the impugned judgments. He would
further contend that absolutely there is no explanation
forthcoming from accused No.1 for possession of 60 U.S.
Whiskey bottles each containing 90 ML worth of
Rs.1,687/-, which was seized under panchanama and
therefore, the case of the prosecution stands established
in toto.
was present at the spot along with accused No.1 and he
ran away from the spot. Therefore, it must be presumed
that accused No.2 had also a hand in sale of illicit liquor
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
along with accused No.1, which has been rightly
appreciated by both the Courts and sought for dismissal of
the revision petition in toto.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear
that under the panchanama, head of the raid party was
able to seize 60 U.S. Whiskey bottles each containing 90
ML worth of Rs.1,687/-, in the presence of the panchas.
Admittedly, accused No.1 did not possess the license or
permit to possess such huge quantity of whiskey with him
and therefore, it is termed as illicit liquor and rightly
seized by the head of the raid party.
10. Admittedly, head of the raid party, police and
panchas did not possess any animosity or previous enmity
as against accused No.1 to depose falsely. Therefore,
placing reliance on the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses coupled with the seizure of illicit liquor under the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
panchanama is sufficient enough to maintain the
conviction in favour of the accused No. 1 is concerned.
11. However, with regard to accused No.2 is
concerned, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the
revision petitioners, there is no independent evidence
placed on record except the confession statement made by
accused No.1 before the Investigation Officer.
12. Mere confession statement made by accused
No.1 about involvement of accused No.2 in the incident, in
the absence of any sufficient corroboration, would not be
sufficient enough to record an order of conviction as per
the settled principles of law.
13. Therefore, conviction as against accused No.2
cannot be countenanced in law. Unfortunately, learned
Judge in the First Appellate Court did not consider the
arguments addressed on behalf of accused No.2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
14. Under such circumstances, the conviction order
recorded by the learned Trial Judge confirmed by the First
Appellate Court insofar as accused No.2 needs to be set
aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a. Revision petition filed by petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 is hereby dismissed.
b. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is granted
time till 10.07.2025 to surrender before the
Trial Court for serving the remaining part of
sentence.
c. Revision petition insofar as petitioner
No.2/accused No.2 is allowed and
conviction of accused No.2 is hereby set
aside and he is set at free if he is not
required in any other case.
d. Bail bonds, if any, executed by accused
No.2 stand cancelled.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2912
HC-KAR
e. Fine amount deposited by accused No.2 is
ordered to be returned to him under due
identification.
f. Order accordingly.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
