Bangalore District Court
Surayanarayana Gowda M R vs Ramaiah on 29 August, 2025
KABC030870272019
DEEPA Digitally signed
VEERASWAMY by
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 26-11-2019
Registered on : 26-11-2019
Decided on : 29-08-2025
Duration : 5 years, 9 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 29th Day of August, 2025
C.C. No.28105/2019
Crime No.69/2018-1/90SIE3/900104
State by Excise Police Station,
Yashwanthpura Sub Division,
Hebbala Range, Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Ramaiah,
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Sri Narayana,
2. Sri Pradeep.R.,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Sri S.Ramaiah,
KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
Both are R/at No.457,
Sumangali Sevashrama,
1st Cross, Cholanayakanahalli,
R.T.Nagara, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri. Thyagaraj S.N., Adv for Accused)
1. Date of commission of 06-03-2019 at 7.30 pm
offence
2. Date of FIR 06-03-2019
3. Date of Charge sheet 02-04-2019
4.Name of Complainant Sri Nagabhushana.K.N.,
Excise Sub Inspector - III,
State Intelligence Bureau,
Bengaluru
5. Offences complained of Under Section 13, 14, 15,
32, 38(A) and 43
Karnataka Excise Act.
6. Date of framing of 308-11-2022
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 07-08-2023
of evidence
2
KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
9. Date of Judgment is 29-08-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 29-08-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Excise Inspector-4, State Intelligence Bureau, Bengaluru City submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 06-03-2019 at about 7.30 p.m., at house No.457, situated at Sumangali Sevashrama, 1st Cross, Cholanayakanahalli, R.T. Nagar, Benglauru, within the limits of Hebbala Range, the accused No.1 and 2 were in illegal possession of 21 liters of Indian made liquor which is meant for defense personnel only, without having any license.
3 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/20193. First Information Report: On the receipt of credible information, on 06-03-2019, at 07:30 PM CW1/PW4 Sri K.N. Nagabhushan, the then Excise Sub Inspector, raided the house No. 457, Sumangali Sevashram, 1st Cross road, R T Nagar, Cholanayakanahalli, with pancha witnesses, prepared search warrant and found plastic bag and cardboard box in a room of the house and found different branded liquor which were labelled CSD only for defense personnel and same were seized under Ex.P1-spot cum seizure mahazar, samples were taken for chemical examination as per MO1 to MO9 and produced before office and filed a complaint as per Ex.P5. On the basis of complaint, Ex.P6 FIR registered and the seized goods were subjected to list of articles as per Ex.P7. The seized sample bottles were sent for chemical examination through CW8 with letter as per Ex.P8 and received FSL report as per Ex.P9, sample seal is marked as Ex.P10.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers form CW7, CW9/PW6 Sri R.Suresh, Excise Inspector, received the report from Assistant Revenue Officers of Hebbal Sub-Division that the alleged incident place belongs to accused No.1, recorded the statements of CW1 to 4, CW7 and on completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
4 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/20195. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 and 2.
6. At the pre-cognizance stage, the accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 11-03-2019 and accused No.2 was enlarged on bail by the order dated 31-01-2020 at post cognizance stage.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 to 2.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, charge for the offences punishable under Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses, examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents and MO1 to MO9 and closed their side. On account of examination of CW3, the examination of CW1 was given up by the order dated 07-08-2023. On account 5 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 of marking of Ex.P4, the examination of CW5 was given up by the order dated 09-05-2025. On account of marking of FSL report through PW4, the examination of CW8 was given up by the order dated 13-06-2025.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 06-03-2019 at about 7.30 p.m., at house No.457, situated at Sumangali Sevashrama, 1st Cross, Cholanayakanahalli, R.T. Nagar, Benglauru within the 6 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 limits of Hebbala Range, the accused No.1 and 2 were in illegal possession of 21 liters of Indian made liquor which is meant for defense personnel only without license thereby resulted in commission of an offences punishable under Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act?
2. What order?
13. The court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the witnesses which are as follows;
7 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019i. CW3 Sri Pavan, spot mahazar witness examined as PW1 identified his signature on Ex.P1 spot cum seizure mahazar which was drawn on Hebbal-Cholanayakanahalli Ashrama Road and deposed that he affixed his signature as per the instruction of police. In this regard, the learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness but no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case. His denial statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P2.
ii. CW4 Sri namely Sri Krishna, another pancha witness examined as PW2 identified his signature on Ex.P1 spot cum seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1(b) and deposed that he does not know the contents of the same and denied the seizure of liquors in his presence.
iii. CW2 by name Sri Madhusudhana.K. the then Excise constable examined as PW3 deposed that on 26.03.2019, as per the directions of JC Excise Intelligence, he along with CW7 were patrolling at Hebbal and Yelahanka and received information that the accused No. 1 and 2 were in illegal possession of liquor at No.457, Cholanayakanahalli, Sumangali Sevasharama Road and accordingly, he along with CW3 and CW4 as pancha witnesses went to the spot 8 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 around 7.30 PM, prepared the reasons for not obtaining search warrant and searched and found each measuring 750ml of Signature Brand Whiskey 750 ml - 100 packets 5 bottles, 750ml - black and white 7 bottle, Vat 69- 5 bottles, Blanderspride 13 bottles, totalling to 28 bottles and on the said bottles, it was mentioned as "sale for defense personnel only". When they enquired the Accused, they informed that they purchased from known persons to sell to the customers. Then they took the sample from each brand for chemical examination, sealed those bottles by putting departmental seal, obtained the signature of the pancha witnesses, prepared the list of articles. drawn mahazar and took Accused and seized articles to their office. He identified sample bottles as per MO1.
iv. CW7/PW4 Sri K.N.Nagabhushan, the then Excise Sub Inspector, deposed that on 06-03-2019, at 07:30 PM, as per the order of the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Excise Deputy Inspector and staff led by the Deputy Superintendent of Excise were patrolling the Bangalore North Hebbal and Yelahanka Service Road in their departmental vehicle and at the time received the information that that the accused No. 1 and 2 were in illegal possession of liquor at No.457, Cholanayakanahalli, Sumangali Sevasharama Road and accordingly had gone to the said address along with pancha witnesses. Since 9 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 there was no time to secure the search warrant from the Magistrate, the reasons for non-obtaining search warrant was prepared and the signatures of witnesses and the signatures of accused were obtained therein. After search, it was found that a plastic bag and a cardboard box were found in room of house, when it was found that one bottle measuring 750 ml signature whiskey, 4 bottles each measuring 750 ml Black and white, 750 ml Johnnie Walker Black Label were found. 2 bottles, 3 bottles each measuring 750 ml Vat 69 whiskey, 13 bottles each measuring 750 ml Blender Brewed whiskey, total of 21 liters of liquors were found. The bottles were labeled CSD only for defense personnel. On enquiry, the accused informed that he did not have any license and did not answer correctly about who had given him the bottles. Hence, the sample for chemical examination from each brand was taken and wrapped with cloth and sealed with argu with the departmental seal. Ex.P1 spot cum seizure mahazar conducted from 7:30 pm to 8:30 pm in the presence of CW1 to CW4 and produced before office and filed complaint as per Ex.P5. On the basis of the complaint, FIR as per Ex.P6 registered and the seized articles and subjected to list of articles as per Ex.P7. The seized sample bottles were sent for chemical examination through CW8 with letter as per Ex.P8 and received FSL report as per Ex.P9, sample seal is 10 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 marked as Ex.P10 and the 9 bottles are marked as MO1 to MO9.
v. CW6/PW5 Sri Nagaraj, the Assistant Revenue Officer deposed that on 04-07-2019, the Excise Inspector requested the provide particulars of owner of the property at No.457, 1st Cross Road, SSA Road, Cholanayakanahalli through letter dated 04-07-2019 in turn he provided the particulars of said property and receipt of tax payment. The above-mentioned property is in the name of the accused No.2.
vi. CW9 by name Sri R.Suresh, Excise Inspector/IO examined as PW6 deposed that after receipt of case papers form CW7, he requested the Assistant Revenue Officers of Hebbal Sub-Division to provide the particulars of owner of the house where the alleged incident had taken place and received the report stating that the said house belonged to the accused No.2, and recorded the statements of CW1 to 4, 7 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which reads as under 11 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
13. Manufacture, etc., of excisable article prohibited except under a licence.
(1)No person shall,
(a)manufacture or collect an intoxicant; or
(b)cultivate hemp plant; or
(c)tap a toddy producing tree or draw toddy from any tree; or
(d)construct or work a distillery or brewery; or
(e)bottle liquor for sale; or
(f)use, keep, or have in his possession, any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, whatsoever for the purposes of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy,except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Deputy Commissioner in that behalf or under the provisions of section
18.
(2) A licence granted under this section shall extend to and include servants and other persons employed by the licensee and acting on his behalf.
12 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/201914. Possession of excisable articles in excess of the quantity prescribed.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, prescribe a limit of quantity for the possession of any intoxicant:
Provided that different limits may be prescribed for different qualities of the same article.
(2) No person shall have in his possession any quantity of any intoxicant in excess of the limit prescribed under sub-section (1), except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of,-
(a) a license for the manufacture, cultivation, collection, sale or supply of such article; or
(b) a permit granted by the Deputy Commissioner in that behalf.
15. Sale of excisable articles without license prohibited.- (1) No intoxicant shall be sold except 13 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a license granted in that behalf:
Provided that, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Excise Commissioner may by general or special order specify,-
(a) a person having the right to the toddy drawn from any tree may sell such toddy without a license to a person licensed to manufacture or sell toddy under this Act;
(b) a cultivator or owner of any plant from which an intoxicating drug is produced may sell without a license those portions of the plant from which the intoxicating drug is manufactured or produced, to any person licensed under this Act to sell, manufacture or export the intoxicating drugs or to any officer, whom the Excise Commissioner may generally or specially authorize.14 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
(2) A license for sale under sub-
section (1), shall be granted,-
(a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the sale is within a district, or
(b) by the Excise Commissioner, if the sale is in more than one district:
Provided that subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Excise Commissioner, a license for sale granted under the Excise law in force in any other State may be deemed to be a license granted under this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the sale of any liquor lawfully procured by any person for his private use and sold by him or on his behalf or on behalf of his representatives in interest upon his quitting a station or after his decease.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), no club shall supply liquor to its members on payment of a price or of any fee or subscription 15 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 except under the authority of and subject to the terms and conditions of a license granted in that behalf by the Excise Commissioner and on payment of such fees according to a scale of fees to be fixed by the State Government in this behalf.
32. Penalty for illegal import, etc.-
(1) Whoever, in contravention of this Act, or any rule, notification or order, made, issued or given thereunder, or of any license or permit granted under this Act, imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant, shall, on conviction, 1 [be punished for each offense with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 [five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.] 1 [Provided that the punishment,-
(i) for the first offense shall be not less than [one year rigorous 16 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 imprisonment and fine of not less than ten thousand rupees]; and
(ii) for the second and subsequent offences shall be not less than [two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of not less than twenty thousand rupees] 2 for each such offence.] (2) xxxx 38(A) Outlines the penalty for allowing premises to be used for the commission of offences under the Act. Specifically, it states that anyone who knowingly allows their property or premises to be used for committing offenses punishable under sections 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 will be punished as if they had committed those offenses
43. Liability of certain things to confiscation.-Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, the 17 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely :-
(1) any intoxicant, material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of, or by means of which, such offence has been committed;
(2) any intoxicant lawfully
imported, transported,
manufactured, had in possession or sold along with, or in addition to, any intoxicant liable to confiscation under clause (1); and (3) any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause (1) or clause (2), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering and any animal, vehicle, [except the vehicles owned by the State Road Transport Undertaking or Corporation] 1 vessel, raft or other conveyance used for carrying the same ;18 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
16. Based upon the aforesaid provision, this court had gone through records. It appears from the record that the alleged liquors were seized from the possession of accused No.1 in the house of the accused No.2 on 06-03-2019 from 7.30 pm at house No.457, situated at Sumangali Sevashrama, 1st Cross, Cholanayakanahalli, R.T. Nagar, Benglauru and found that the accused was in illegal possession of each measuring 750ml of Signature Brand Whiskey 750 ml - 100 packets 5 bottles, 750ml - black and white 7 bottle, Vat 69- 5 bottles, Blanderspride 13 bottles, totalling to 28 bottles on the said bottles, totaling 21 liters of liquor for the purpose of sale without license which claims to be under construction house however PW1 and PW2 are residents of Amarjyhothi Layout and SSA Road, Hebbal and not the local inhabitants. It appears from the Ex.P1 that no whisper about the attempts made by the raiding authority to call the local inhabitants to join the seizure procedure.
17. It is clear from Ex.P1 that there were residential houses around the spot and such being the case, why the CW7/PW4 did not call the local inhabitants to call as a witness for alleged seizure. In this regard, it is relevant to quote section 58 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 100(4) of Criminal procedure Code which is reiterated as follows;
19 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019Section 58 of the Karnataka Excise Act contemplates the procedure for arrest, search etc. Unless otherwise, provided the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'code') relating to arrest, detention in custody, searches, summons, warrants of arrests, search warrants, the production of persons arrested and disposal of things shall apply to all the actions taken under the Act.
Section 100 (4) of the Code of criminal procedure mandates (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in 20 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 writing to them or any of them so to do.
As per Section 100 of Cr.P.C., the police authority has to make an attempt to call for independent and respectable inhabitants of locality in which the place to be searched is situated. However the PW4 (IO/informant) has not made an attempt to call local inhabitants as witnesses. Such being the case, this court cannot give any credence to the Ex.P1 (seizure cum spot mahazar) when the local inhabitants was very much available at the time of raid. Only if the witness around spot is not willing to be a witness, then the police officer could have taken the witnesses from other locality however no whisper about the non-availability of witnesses at the spot.
18. If as per Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW4, there is no single documentary evidence that PW4 made attempt to serve notices upon the passersby / residents, who had refused to join the investigation placed on record. Thus, it is not the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot. However, from a perusal of the record, no serious efforts for joining public witnesses appears to have been made by the raiding officer-PW4. In case any of local inhabitants had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later taken legal action against them because they could not have 21 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 escaped the rigors of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC.
19. It appears from the record that the CW9/PW6/IO did not investigate about the source of liquor bottles to whom these liquor bottles were supplied or what was the relationship of accused No. 1 with the said supplier of defence liquors and when it was sold and from which canteen, it was purchased, no particulars of information were secured by the IO. PW6 did not investigate the military canteen in charger to whom these liquor bottles were sold to him.
20. PW1 did not take photograph or video graphed about the seizure procedure.
21. The alleged offences are being cognizable offence however the PW4 proceeded with investigation without registration of FIR. In this context, it is relevant to rely upon Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C which reads as under
"154. Information in cognizable cases.
--(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if 22 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A,section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that-- (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 23 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 354A, section 354B,section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 1[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the 24 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
157. Procedure for investigation.--(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such 25 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that-- (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. [Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of 26 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.] (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that subsection, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated."
Thus, it is clear from above provisions that there are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him. Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him. In both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out. The search carried out by the raiding authority/PW1 is contrary to the law and the same is 27 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 bad in law and the said principle is appreciated in the case of SRI DAYANANDA @ R. BABU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN LAWS(KAR) 2024 - 4-
16.
22. It appears from the record that the voluntary statement of accused was not signed by the accused.
23. In furtherance it is the specific defence of accused that whilst preparing the mahazar as per Ex.P1, PW1 could have written/mentioned about batch number and serial number and manufacturing date of liquors tetra packets but no particulars were available on record to connect the accused and no complete description of Mos as to batch numbers, serial numbers, manufactured date and company name is mentioned in Ex.P1. in this reference, it is relevant to mention the cross examination of PW4 which has been reiterated as under
ಉಪ ಅಧೀಕ್ಷಕರಾದ ಅಶೋಕ್, ಉಪ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಕರಾದ ನಾನು, ಅಬಕಾರಿ ರಕ್ಷಕರಾದ ಮಧುಸೂಧನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಸೂರ್ಯ ನಾರಾಯಣ ಗೌಡ, ವಾಹನ ಚಾಲಕರಾದ ಮೋಹನ್ ರವರು ಗಸ್ತನ್ನು 06-30 ಗಂಟೆಯಿಂದ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು. ಗಸ್ತು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಸ್ಥಳದಿಂದ ಘಟನೆ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಲು 10 ನಿಮಿಷ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳ ಅರ್ಧ ಕಿ.ಮೀ ದೂರ ಇತ್ತು. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಸುಮಂಗಲಿ 28 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 ಸೇವಾಶ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಪಂಚಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸುಮಂಗಲಿ ಸೇವಾಶ್ರಮದ ಹತ್ತಿರ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿರುವಾಗ ಅವರನ್ನು ಪಂಚಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಕೋರಿದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಅವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಜೊತೆ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮದ್ಯ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿರುವ ಮನೆ ನೆಲಮಹಡಿ, 1 ಮತ್ತು 2ನೇ ಮಹಡಿಗಳು ಇತ್ತು. ದಿ.06-03-
2019 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿರುವ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಗೆ ಯಾವ ಮಹಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಕೂಡ ಬಾಗಿಲನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಈಗ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಛಾಯಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ 100 ಪೈಪರ್ಸ್ ಬಾಟಲನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ತಯಾರಿಕ ದಿನಾಂಕ 02-03-2023 ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿವರೆಗೂ ವಾಲಿಡಿಟಿ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ ಬಾಟಲಿಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗ ಸದರಿ ತಯಾರಿಕ ದಿನಾಂಕವನ್ನು 02-03-2023 ಎಂದು ಲೇಬಲನ್ನು ಅಂಟಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮದ್ಯದ ಬಾಟಲಿಗಳಿಗೆ ತಯಾರಿಕ ದಿನಾಂಕ ಮಾತ್ರ ನಮೂದಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ Expiry date ನಮೂದಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಇರುವ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನಾನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಪಂಚರ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದು ಅದರ ಅಂಟಿಸಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, it is clear that MO1 was produced before this court is of the liquors which was dated 29 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 02/03/2023 and not with regard to liquors of 06/03/2019 and much prior to the date of incident. The prosecution has not tendered any explanation about the said discrepancy. Added to which, the prosecution has not explained about the status of remaining liquors bottles.
24. Added to which, PW5 produced that the alleged incident place is in the name of accused No.2 however PW4 did not deny that the house of accused No.2 was under construction and PW4 did not depose whether the house was fully completed or the house was fixed with the doors and windows and said fact was not established by the prosecution and no photographs was taken as to the doors and windows were fitted on the said house and such being the case how the accused No.2 could be held responsible for the said storage of alleged liquors in the house of the accused No.2.
25. Possibility of misuse of specimen seal of the investigating officer: As per the version of prosecution witnesses, after sealing the case property with the departmental seal as "-----" mentioned in the Ex.P1. However, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW4 and PW5 IOs had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. The 30 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 seal remained with the excise police officials of same police station and therefore the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be eschewed. Moreover, it is not even the case of prosecution that the seal was not within the reach of IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property. In this regard, it has been held in the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 held in paragraph 7 that:
"....The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
"9. ... The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very 31 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 essential for the prosecution to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
26. It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to her superior officer. Even the I.O. P.W.4 did not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use to his superior officer. Therefore, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the Investigating Officer or with the other member of raiding party therefore the possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the sample cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out. Thereby this court cannot give any credential /evidentiary value to the Ex.P1. A doubt raises about the authenticity of sealing of MOs when the PW4 failed to handover the specimen seal to his superior officer immediately after the alleged seizure.
32 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/201927. In the present case, on perusal of the entire evidence, except the evidence of police witnesses namely PW3 to PW5, there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the accused. The evidence of police witnesses cannot be considered as a substantial piece of evidence to convict the accused No.1 and 2. At the best, evidence of police can be used as corroboration in addition to substantiate piece of evidence. In the absence of substantial piece of evidence, the evidence of police witnesses is not sufficient to hold the accused guilt thereby this court answers the above point No.1 in the negative.
28. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.33 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 to MO9 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of August, 2025) DEEPA Digitally signed by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Pavan/Pancha witness PW2 : Sri Krishna/Pancha witness PW3 : Sri Madhusudhan.K./Excise Constable PW4 : Sri K.N.Nagabhushan/Excise Sub Inspector informant PW5 : Sri Nagaraj/Asst.Revenue Officer PW6 : Sri R.Suresh/Excise Inspector/IO 34 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019 Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1: Spot cum seizure mahazar/PW1 Ex.P2: Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Not marked Ex.P4: Search Warrant/PW4 Ex.P5: Report/PW4 Ex.P6: FIR/PW4 Ex.P7: List of Articles/PW4 Ex.P8: Letter dtd: 11-4-2019 addressed to Laboratory/PW4 Ex.P9: Report of Chemical analysis/PW4 Ex.P10: Sample seal /PW4 Letter dtd: 24-07-2019 from BBMP/PW5 Ex.P11: Tax paid receipt (Copy)/PW5 Ex.P12: Letter dated 04-07-2019 addressed to Revenue Department of BBMP/PW6 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1- 9 : Sample bottles Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.35 KABC030870272019 CC 28105/2019
29-08-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 13, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 to MO9 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly VIII ACJM, B'luru City 36