Karnataka High Court
Santosh vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200063 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH S/O CHANNU JADHAV,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KARJOL TANDA,
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA R/BY ADDL. SPP,
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF KALABURAGI BENCH-585106.
KARNATAKA (THROUGH EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR
VIJAYAPURA-585101).
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018
PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN CRL.A
NO.70/2016 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
CRL.RP No. 200063 of 2018
29.11.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. JMFC, VIJAYAPURA IN
C.C.NO.3770/2013 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 32
OF KARNATKA EXCISE ACT 1965 & 273 OF IPC AND ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 in
C.C No.3770/2013 on the file of the III Addl. JMFC at
Vijayapur, and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 05.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.70/2016 on the file of
the Prl. Sessions Judge, at Vijayapur, wherein Trial
Court convicted the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965 and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC').
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered
henceforth as per their rankings in the Trial Court for
convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.07.2013
the Excise Inspector after having received a credible
information with regarding illegal possession of illicit
liquor, went to the spot along with staffs around
about 6.00 am and conducted raid on the house of
the accused and found that the accused was having
possessed 5 liters of illicit liquor in one yellow plastic
can with intention to sell it for human consumption.
Immediately, he conducted raid and seized the said
illicit liquor and drawn the mahazar. After having
conducted the investigation, submitted the charge
sheet.
4. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jamadar
Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent - State.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that both the Courts have failed to consider
the mandatory requirement, which was required to
be followed before conducting the search and seizure
on the dwelling house. As the procedure has not
been followed, filing of FIR and further proceedings
thereof have to be vitiated. However, the Courts
below have committed an error in not considering the
said settled principle of law and rendered the
conviction, which are unsustainable. Therefore, the
petitioner is before this Court and seeking
intervention of this Court for the purpose of securing
the ends of the justice. Making such submissions, he
prays to allow the petition.
6. To substantiate the said contention, he relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of K.L.Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in AIR 1979 SC 711.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent vehemently justified the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
concurrent findings of the Courts below and he
further submitted that the concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below are appropriate and
proper, there is no reason to interfere with the said
findings.
8. It is further submitted that the Investigation Officer
even though has not followed the procedure
contemplated under Section 53 of the said Act, he
has followed Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
Therefore, there is no infirmity and illegality in the
proceedings. The Courts below after having arrived
at the conclusion that the petitioner found guilty of
the offence, rendered the conviction which requires
no interference. Making such submissions, he prays
to dismiss the petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Courts
below, it is necessary to state the facts in brief.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.07.2013,
the Excise Inspector and his staff have received a
credible information that the accused was in
possession of 5 liters of illicit liquor and selling the
same for human consumption. Having received the
same, he went to the spot and conducted the raid,
seized the illicit liquor in the presence of the pancha
witnesses. After conducting the investigation,
submitted the charge sheet.
11. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is
necessary to have a cursor look upon the documents
produced by the prosecution. Ex.P.2 would indicate
that it is a complaint stated to have addressed to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. However, the procedure
which was required to be followed has not been
followed. Though the FIR has been registered, no
complaint was filed in respect of the offences stated
supra. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that an
oral information in respect of cognizable offence shall
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
be reduced into writing. In the absence of such oral
information, registration of the FIR and consequential
proceedings has to be vitiated for the reason that in
the absence of such information, FIR cannot be
registered.
12. Since both the Courts have committed error in not
considering the said aspect, the impugned judgment
has been passed which is required to be set aside.
13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
I. The petition is allowed.
II. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed in C.C
No.3770/2013 by the III Addl. JMFC at
Vijayapur, and the judgment and order dated
05.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.70/2016 by the
Prl. Sessions Judge, at Vijayapur are set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1424
III. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the
offences under Section 32 of Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965 and Section 273 of IPC.
IV. Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
TMP
CT:PK
