Karnataka High Court

Mohan vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409
                                                   CRL.RP No. 200139 of 2024


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200139 OF 2024
                                   (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI MOHAN S/O SHANKAR CHAVAN,
                   AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                   R/O MULAWAD LT NO.2, TQ. KOLHAR,
                   DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.

                                                                ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed
by RENUKA          THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           THROUGH EXCISE PS, VIJAYPUR,
KARNATAKA          REP. BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
                   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                   KALABURAGI-585107.

                                                              ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)


                          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                   SECTION 438 R/W SEC. 442 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO SET
                   ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2023 PASSED BY THE I
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409
                                   CRL.RP No. 200139 of 2024


HC-KAR




ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.28/2022 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2021
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIJAYAPUR
IN CC NO.212/2018.


     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered

an order of conviction in C.C.No.212/2018, on the file of

the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur for the

offences under Sections 32 and 38A of the Karnataka

Excise Act and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced as under:

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

"Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 32 of Karnataka Excise Act 1965, and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act 1965, and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one(1) month for the offence punishable U/s 273 of IPC.

The accused is entitled for the benefit of set off as per Sec.428 of CrP.C.

All the sentences for imprisonment shall run concurrently.

MO.1 is ordered to be returned to the concerned department after appeal period for disposal in accordance with law."

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

3. The validity of the order of conviction and

sentence was questioned by the accused before the

District Court in Criminal Appeal No.28/2022.

4. Learned District Judge after securing the

records and hearing the parties in detail, by a considered

judgment dated 15.07.2023 dismissed the appeal

confirming the order of conviction and sentence.

5. Being further aggrieved by same, the accused is

before this Court in this revision petition.

6. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present petition are as under:

6.1. An Excise Official received a credible

information when he was in his office on 23.01.2017 at

05-00 p.m., that somebody is possessing the illicit liquor

and they are transporting the same on a motorcycle.

Accordingly, a raid party was formed, comprising of head

of the raid party, sub-staff and two independent panchas

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

and all of them went near the Kakhandaki cross as per the

credible information.

6.2. When they were watching for the suspect, they

noticed a motorcycle with a bag on the petrol tank. On

suspicion, the motorcycle was intercepted and on such

interception, the accused tried to ran away from the spot

by parking the motorcycle. The sub-staff of the head of

the raid party was successful in apprehending him.

6.3. In the presence of panchas, search memo was

prepared and bag was searched. On searching the bag,

one white plastic can containing 10 liters of liquid was

found with a nasty smell. They found that the contents of

the plastic can was a country made liquor and the

motorcyclist did not possess any pass or permit for

possessing the same or transporting the same on TVS Star

CT 110 motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/W-4391.

Accordingly, they enquired the apprehended person about

his whereabouts. Then he has revealed his name as Mohan

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

Shankar Chavan. Since the liquid found in the plastic can

was illicit liquor, the same was seized under the seizure

panchanama, samples were drawn and thereafter he was

handed over to the Station House Officer, wherein a case

came to registered and after thorough investigation,

chargesheet came to be filed.

7. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the

offences alleged against the petitioner and after thorough

trial, accused has been convicted and sentenced as

referred to supra.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused

approached the First Appellate Court, wherein his appeal

came to be dismissed on merits.

9. Being further aggrieved by same, petitioner is

before this Curt in this revision petition.

10. Sri S. S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

revision petition vehemently contended that both the

Courts have not properly appreciated the material

evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused.

11. Alternatively, Sri S.S. Mamadapur would

contend that accused is a first time offender and therefore,

benefit of probation be accorded to the petitioner and

sought for allowing the petition.

12. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned

High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision

grounds in toto by contending that none of the members

of the raid party did nurture previous enmity or animosity

against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the case

and very fact of seizure of 10 liters of country made illicit

liquor from the can that was being transported in the

motorcycle, concludes the offence and sought for dismissal

of revision petition.

13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously. On

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear

that based on the credible information, head of the raid

party formed a raid team and they are all proceeded to

Kakhandaki cross and then spotted a motorcycle.

Motorcyclist tried to ran away from the spot and later on

he was apprehended and enquired about the contents in

the bag. When there was no satisfactory explanation, bag

was opened under the search memo and the can

contained 10 liters of liquid with nasty smell. Later on, it

was found that it's a country made liquor. Samples were

drawn and liquors were seized under the seizure memo.

Sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, got

confirmed that the contents of the can were illicit liquor.

14. These aspects of the matter have been taken

note of by the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned

judgment with proper and logical reasoning. For having

possessed illicit liquor, there was no pass or permit with

the accused resulting in commission of the offences under

Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act and having regard

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

to the quantity, under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise

Act and the same was being sought to be sold, therefore

attracts all ingredients to attract the offence under Section

273 of IPC.

15. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the

Trial Magistrate which has been rightly re-appreciated by

the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, needs no

interference that too in the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, order of conviction needs

to be maintained.

16. Having said thus, insofar as the appropriate

sentence is concerned, the learned Trial Magistrate has

ordered minimum punishment prescribed under the

statute and minimum fine has been imposed.

17. Therefore, there is no scope for according the

benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in view of the fact

that minimum punishment is prescribed under the statute

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3409

HC-KAR

and Probation of Offenders Act is not made applicable to

such offences.

18. Hence, none of the grounds urged in the

revision petition are sufficient enough to admit the revision

petition for further consideration.

19. Accordingly, the following

ORDER

(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.

(b) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence till 20.07.2025.

(c) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith.

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

RSP

CT:PK