C.R. NAGESH S/O. LATE RUDREGOWDA Vs. STATE BY MANDYA EXCISE INSPECTOR REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 1908 [CrPC] is to get over the conviction and sentence suffered by the revision petitioner in terms of the judgment and order dated 27 -2 -2007 passed in CC No 1333 of 2005, on the file of Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC, Mandya, convicting the petitioner, who figured as second accused along with another person who was arraigned as first accused, for the offences punishable under Section 32 read with Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, the Act], and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 32 and likewise for the offence under Section 38A to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, a conviction and sentence which the petitioner was unable to wriggle out in his appeal in Criminal Appeal No 15 of 2007, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -III, Mandya, as in terms of the judgment dated 19 -12 -2007, the learned sessions judge dismissed the appeal, finding no occasion to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the trial court.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P M Nawaz, learned Addl SPP, appearing for the respondent -state, perused the judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court and looked into the records.

(3.) PROSECUTION supported its case by examining three witnesses. PW1 being an independent mahazar witness, a person who witnessed preparation, of ExP1 mahazar, and PWs 2 and 3 being officials of the excise department, who headed the raiding party. Seized liquor sachets constitute material objections. The accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for being tried. No rebuttal evidence is led on behalf of the accused persons nor any defence set up on their behalf.