GOVIND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the revision petitioner's counsel and also the Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case is that, on 26.1.1994, at about 09.00 p.m. , accused No.1 was standing in front of the house of one H.Basappa situated at Mandalbatti, H.BHalli , and on enquiry he found that 300 packets of liquor of 100 ml each and on enquiry he did not produce any licence for possessing the same and on enquiry as to from where he brought it, he took the complainant and other staff near the place of a hut, wherein accused Nos.2 to 8 were there and they were involved in possessing the illegalliquor and found that 12880 liters of spirit and about 10,000 liters liquor was kept in di fferent plastic and other utensi ls like sintex and also parked a Jeep bearing registration No.KA-25/M-971 to transport the same illegally and the same are seized. After the investigation a case has been registered against total 9 accused persons. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against this revision petitioner and others, relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and also relied upon documents Ex.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.Nos.1 to 11.

(3.) The Court below after hearing the arguments of both the sides, convicted accused Nos.1, 3, 5 to 9 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each and in default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months in respect of the of fence punishable under section 32 of Karnataka Excise Act and the Court below also sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 each, in default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the of fence punishable under section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, this revision petitioner and others fi led an appeal before the Fast Track Court at Hosapete and the lower appellate Court on re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction against accused Nos.1, 3, 5 to 8 and acquitted accused No.9. Being aggrieved by the conf irmation of conviction and sentence, the accused No.7 i.e. , the revision petitioner herein has preferred this revision petition before this Court.