Karnataka High Court
Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
CRL.RP No. 200005 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200005 OF 2019
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O MANOHAR MIRAJKAR,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O. NEAR CHANDABAWADI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP,
Digitally signed HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
by RENUKA KALABURAGI BENCH - 585106.
Location: HIGH (THROUGH EXCISE PS VIJAYAPUR)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...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 07.12.2018
PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, AT VIJAYAPUR IN
CRL.A.NO.07/2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
CRL.RP No. 200005 of 2019
DATED 04.01.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. JMFC,
VIJAYAPUR, IN C.C.NO.2513/2008 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/SEC.32 & 34 OF KARNATAKA 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)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 04.01.2017 passed in
C.C.No.2513/2008 by the Court of III Additional JMFC,
Vijayapur (for short 'Trial Court') and its confirmation
judgment and order dated 07.12.2018 passed in
Crl.A.No.7/2017 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge
at Vijayapur (for short 'Appellate Court'), seeking to set
aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts
below, wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and under Section 273 of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
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 are:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on
22.06.2007 at about 12.30 p.m., the Excise Staff on
receiving the credible information had been to Apsara
Talkies in Mangwadi Colony of Vijayapur City along with
panchas and found that the accused was having in
possession of 5 liters of country made illicit arrack and he
intended to sell the same to the public for their
consumption. Hence, the Excise Staff had apprehended
the accused and conducted raid. After conducting the
investigation, police have submitted the charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined in all 4 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4
and got marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5 and also
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
identified one material object as MO.1 - sample bottle. On
the other hand, the accused has not led any evidence nor
marked any documents on his behalf.
5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of
the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 273 of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court
confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has
preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the
concurrent findings.
6. Heard Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
- State.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused that the investigation was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
conducted based on the FIR. However, the said FIR has
not been followed by the information or complaint of the
informant, therefore, registering the FIR without a
complaint of the informant, held to be illegal and
registration of FIR and its consequential proceedings must
be vitiated. However, the Courts below without going into
the legal aspects of the matter, have proceeded further to
pass the impugned judgments, which are required to be
set aside.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader has vehemently justified the concurrent findings
and he further submitted that the panchanama is
considered as an information which was required to be
given by the informant and the said information has been
reduced as FIR in terms of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Hence,
there is no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below. Both the Courts below
have concurrently held that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubts and recorded the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
conviction. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any
ground to interfere with the concurrent findings and
accordingly, the petition has to be rejected.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also perused the findings of the
Courts below, it appears that the prosecution has got
marked five documents. Except the said five documents,
nothing has been produced to prove the case of the
prosecution.
10. The investigation has to be followed after
registration of FIR and the FIR has to be followed by the
information given by the informant. All these processes
are interlinked with each other. Unless and until there is a
complaint, the FIR cannot be registered. Without FIR, the
investigation cannot be carried out. However, in this case,
the FIR had been registered on the basis of panchanama
which cannot be termed as neither complaint nor
information as contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the said aspect of the matter, I am of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
considered view that without information having been
given by the informant, registration of FIR is held to be
illegal and consequent proceedings thereof would be
vitiated. However, the Courts below have committed an
error in going through the records and rendering
conviction, which is required to be set aside.
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 04.01.2017 passed in
C.C.No.2513/2008 by the Court of III
Additional JMFC, Vijayapur and the judgment
and order dated 07.12.2018 passed in
Crl.A.No.7/2017 by the Court of Principal
Sessions Judge at Vijayapur are set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1477
(iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the
Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Section 273
of IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed by the accused, if any,
stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:PK
