AMANULLAH KHAN REP. BY HIS SPA HOLDER Vs. STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF EXCISE STATE E.I.B. NEW PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE YESHWANTHPURA EIB-III

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are concurrent findings of Authorised Officer and I -appellate court. The Authorized Officer has held that lorry bearing No. MEZ 5750 of which petitioner is the registered owner was used for transportation of liquor ,without permit and petitioner has misused vehicle. The learned Judge of I -appellate court on re -appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of Authorised Officer. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for petitioner absent. Heard learned HCGP for State.

(3.) THE law is fairly well settled that if Investigating Officer has not been able to obtain search warrant, he can record reasons for not obtaining search warrant and proceed with search. The petitioner has failed to establish that his vehicle was not misused or he had taken reasonable steps to prevent misuse of his vehicle. When vehicle of petitioner was used for illegal transportation of liquor, without permit, vehicle is liable for confiscation. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.