LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-265

B R ASHWATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On February 20, 2017
B R Ashwath Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.11.2007 passed by the JMFC, Sakleshpur, in C.C. No.627/2005 and also the judgment and order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hassan in Crl. Appeal No.142/2007.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments made in the complaint (Ex.P.1) are that the accused person was found with arrack sachets with him on 06.04.2005 and on credible information, the officers of the Excise Department (P.Ws.1, 6 and 7) went to the spot. After seeing the said officers, the accused person threw the plastic bag containing the arrack sachets. Further, it is alleged in the complaint that the accused criminally intimidated them by holding a long in his hands. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against him alleging that the accused person had criminally intimidated by obstructing the Government servants from discharging their duty. On the basis of the said complaint a case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, the investigating officer conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, in all examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and produced the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.5 and got marked one material object-long as per M.O.1. On the side of the defence, neither the witnesses were examined nor the documents were produced. After considering the materials, both oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner-accused for the said offences. When the accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, the first appellate Court after, re-appreciating the materials placed before it, has partly allowed the appeal. Though conviction was confirmed by the first appellate Court, the sentence was modified.