MUTTAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi, in S.C. No.35/2012 whereunder the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KE Act', for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period for three months for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the KE Act. Further, the appellant accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 34 of the KE Act and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant-accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 273 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to the 'IPC', for brevity).

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that the PSI, Mudhol Police Station, filed a complaint against the appellant-accused alleging that on 31.08.2011, he received a credible information that a person is illegally transporting illicit country made liquor packets in a plastic manure bag. Thereafter, the complainant along with his constables- CWs.4 to 6 and panchas went to Kulali village in a police jeep and waited on Kulali road after passing Nirina's sugar factory near the nala. At that time, a person came on a Hero Honda Motor cycle carrying plastic manure bag kept on the petrol tank of the motor cycle. The complainant and his staff stopped the said person and opened the plastic bag and found 100 packets of illicit liquor containing 180 ml each. The police have taken the accused into custody and took him to the police station and out of 100 packets, one packet was sent for chemical analysis to RFSL, Belgaum. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the KE Act and Sections 273 and 328 of IPC.

(3.) In proof of its case, the prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-5 and one material object as M.O.1. On the side of the defence, neither any witnesses were examined nor documents were produced.