NAGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C., is to set aside the order of dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.118/2008 dated 20.08.2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge at Shimoga, filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 32 of Karnataka Excise Act, dated 30.10.2008 in C.C.No.4768/2004 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Bhadravathi.

(2.) THE revision petitioner was the accused before the JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.C.No.4768/2004. On 07.04.2003, at about 1.00 pm, on receipt of credible information by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shimoga, as to the possession of illicit liquor, the Excise Superintendant along with his staff conducted a search in the house of the accused and found the accused in possession of 49,440 whisky bottles of 180 ml. each in 1030 boxes. Since the accused had no pass or permit to possess the whisky bottles, all the bottles were seized under a Panchanama. Out of that, 15 bottles of 180 ml. each were sent for Chemical Examination. After receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner that they contained alcohol, the charge -sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act. The accused faced trial. On behalf of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5. Exs.P1 to P6 came to be marked apart from M.O.1 -15 Sample Whisky Bottles. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence that cropped up against him. His defence is that of total denial. Upon hearing the arguments and upon appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act for having possessed the Whisky bottles without any pass or permit and thereby sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ - and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The accused challenged his conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.118/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The learned Sessions Judge on re -appreciation of the evidence confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Revision Petition is preferred questioning the legality and correctness of the orders.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri. Mohan Bhat and learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri. Nasrullah Khan. Perused the records.