Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Rajesh Rai on 28 March, 2025

                                            -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:13218
                                                   CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                         BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2018

                   BETWEEN:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
                      PUTTUR RANGE, PUTTUR
                      D.K., MANGALURU DISTRICT
                      RE.P BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                      HIGH COURT BUILDING
                      BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                             ...PETITIONER

                   (BY MR. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP)

                   AND:

                      RAJESH RAI
                      S/O NARAYANA RAI,
Digitally signed
by MAYAGAIAH          AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
VINUTHA               R/AT MADKA HOUSE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              KARNOOR PSOT,
KARNATAKA             NETTANIGE MUDNOORU VILLAGE
                      PUTTUR TALUK
                      D.K- 574 211.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY MRS. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE)

                        THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
                   PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID THE JUDGMENT AND
                   ORDER DATED 15.06.2018 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.5001/2018
                   ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
                   JUDGE, MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. AND
                                   -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:13218
                                           CRL.RP No. 1096 of 2018




JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.805/2009 BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND     JMFC,    PUTTUR,    D.K.,   ACQUITTING     THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32 AND 34
OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND SECTION 273 OF IPC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                             ORAL ORDER

The State has preferred this revision petition against the

judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.5001/2018 by

the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore

sitting at Puttur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions

Judge' for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the appeal filed by the State by confirming the

judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, Puttur, D.K., in C.C.No.805/2009 dated 18.01.2017.

2. The abridged facts of the prosecution case are that:

Based on the credible information, the Inspector of Excise

-PW.8 along with panchas conducted a raid on the house of the

accused bearing door No.69 of Alangooradka, Olamagru Village,

Puttur Taluk on the intervening night of 26/27.04.2018. It is

the case of the complainant that upon seeing the Excise

NC: 2025:KHC:13218

officials, the accused fled away from the court yard of the

house through the back door of the house. Thereafter, on

suspicion, PW.8 prepared a search memo in the house, in the

presence of PW1-the independent pancha and other officials.

They found a Maruthi car bearing registration No.KA-19/P-6310

on the court yard and found 4 cotton boxes inside the said car

and also 192 quarter bottles of illicit liquors. On further search

in the house, they found 32 carton boxes, 1536 bottles of

spurious liquors namely original choice Deluxe Whiskey and

Brandy, 100 liters of blended liquors in a plastic barrel, 210

liters of spirit in 6 Cans, 6 liters of essence, 1000 labels of

original choice Deluxe Whiskey etc. The PW.8 seized all the

materials under a seizure memo Ex.P1. Thereafter, he

registered a suo moto case against the respondent-accused for

the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the

Karnataka Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and Section 273 of

the IPC in Cr.No.1/2008. Later, PW.8 conducted investigation

and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Act

before the learned Magistrate.

NC: 2025:KHC:13218

3. After securing the presence of the accused, learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and farmed charges

against the accused for the aforesaid offences along with

Section 273 of IPC.

4. In order to prove the charges leveled against the

accused, the prosecution in total examined 8 witnesses i.e.,

PW.1 to PW.8 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 so also

got identified 3 material objections i.e., MOs.1 to 3.

5. After assessment of oral and documentary

evidence, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the

charges leveled against him vide judgment dated 18.01.2017 in

C.C.No.805/2009.

6. However the State has challenged the said

judgment before the learned Sessions Judge in

Crl.A.No.5001/2018.

7. On re-appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by

the State by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by

NC: 2025:KHC:13218

the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.805/2009. Challenge to the

same is lis before this Court.

8. I have heard learned HCGP Sri Rajath Subramanya

for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Smt. Haleema

Ameen for the respondent-accused.

9. The primary contention of the learned HCGP is that

both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred

while acquitting the accused for the charges leveled against

him without appreciating the evidence in a right perspective.

He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1 i.e.,

independent pancha witness clearly corroborates with the

evidence of PW.8-Investigation Officer in respect of the raid

conducted in the house of the accused and also about the

seizure of the spurious liquors. Further, in the evidence of

PW.6, she has stated that she sold her house to the accused,

where the spurious liquors seized. In such circumstances, the

prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgments

passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable

to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the revision

NC: 2025:KHC:13218

petition and convict the accused for the charges leveled against

him.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

accused submitted that both the trial Court and the First

Appellate Court, after perusal of the entire evidence on record,

passed a well reasoned judgments, which do not call for

interference at the hands of this Court. She contended that

PW.1-independent pancha witness totally failed to identify the

accused-respondent before the trial Court. She further

contended that, the prosecution also failed to prove that the

house where the illicit liquors said to have been seized belongs

to the accused. In such circumstances, the prosecution

miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and

accordingly, both the Courts below passed well reasoned

judgments. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the revision

petition.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for both the

parties and having given my anxious consideration to the

documents made available before me including the judgments

NC: 2025:KHC:13218

passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the only

point that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.805/2009?"

12. On careful scrutiny of the documents, it could be

gathered that PW.1-the independent pancha witness for the

seizure of the illicit liquors under Ex.P1 has categorically

admitted in his evidence that he is unable to identify the

accused. Further, though the prosecution has claimed that

house No.69 situated at Alangooradka, Olamagru Village,

Puttur Taluk belongs to the accused, there is no such

authenticated documents placed by the prosecution to prove

the same except placing Ex.P2-sale agreement executed

between PW.6, owner of the house and the accused. However,

the sale deed of the house stands in the name of PW.6, the

owner. On perusal of the evidence of PW.6, in her cross-