Bangalore District Court
The Excise Of Varthur Range vs Harish Reddy on 7 January, 2026
1 CC.No.974/2022
KABC0C0232672024
Presented on : 15-02-2022
Registered on : 15-02-2022
Decided on : 07-01-2026
Duration : 3 years, 10 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.C.J.M
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
-: Present :-
Sri. Girish Chatni,
B.A., LL.B(Spl)
XXIX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 07th Day of January, 2026
CRIMINAL CASE No.974/2022
The State by
Excise Inspector,
Varthur Range,
Bengaluru.
... Complainant.
(By Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor)
// Versus //
Harish Reddy,
R/at: House No.741,
2 CC.No.974/2022
2nd Main, Vagdevi Villas School Road,
Munekolalu, Bengaluru.
... Accused
(By Shri.N.V.R, Advocate)
1. Date of offence 19.01.2021
2. Date of final report 24.11.2021
3. Arrest of accused -
4. Whether in custody No
5. Complainant Rupeshkumar.A
6. Offences alleged U/Sec.32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka
Excise Act.
7. Evidence commenced on 21.09.2024
8. Evidence closed on 27.06.2025
9. Date of judgment 07.01.2026
10. Opinion of presiding officer Accused found not Guilty
11. Complainant represented by Learned A.P.P.
(GIRISH CHATNI)
XXIX ACJM, BENGALURU
3 CC.No.974/2022
JUDGMENT
The Excise Inspector, Varthur Range, Bangalore has filed charge sheet against the accused alleging the commission of offence punishable under sections 32, 38(a) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
2. THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN NUT SHELL :-
It is the case of the complainant that, on 19.01.2021 at 3.30 PM, when CW.1 along with staff on patrolling duty at Marathahalli Ring Road to Munekolalu Road, near Railway Gate, accused was coming on bike bearing No.KA-03-JA-2830 and was found in possession of 34.56 litters of different liquor on the bike without any valid license or permit and was trasoring the same in bike to sell the same. Case came to be registered against the accused in crime No.9/2020-21 for the offence punishable U/s 32(1) and 43 in violation of section 11 and 14 of Karnataka Excise Act. Thereafter, the investigation officer after completion of the investigation has submitted final report against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Exise Act.
3. During the crime stage, accused was arrested and was produced before the court, later on he was released on bail. After filing of the final report, cognizance for the above said 4 CC.No.974/2022 alleged offences was taken against the accused and the above said criminal case came to be registered.
4. After registration of the case, the presence of the accused was secured. The copy of final report and it's enclosures were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard both sides. Charge framed and read over to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses out of 06 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as per P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 16 documents were got marked as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16, 20 sample bottles were identified and marked as M.O.1 to M.O.20. Thereafter, the accused has been examined as provided Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused has denied the same and has not produced any oral or documentary evidence.
6. On the basis of the charge sheet allegation, oral & documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 19.01.2021 the accused was found in possession of 34.56 5 CC.No.974/2022 litters of different type of liquor on the bike bearing No.KA-03-JA-2830 without having valid license and permit to transport the illegal liquor and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused was transporting 34.56 liters liquor in bike bearing No.KA-03-JA-2830 without having any license and permit and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused was found in possession of illegal liquors as alleged without having any license or permit and was transporting the same and selling the same and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act
4. What Order or Sentence?6 CC.No.974/2022
7. Heard the advocate appearing for accused and learned A.P.P. Perused oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and my findings on the above points are as under;
Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative,
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 to 3 :-
As these three points are interlinked, I have taken up these points together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts & evidence.
It is the allegation set forth against the accused that, he was found in possession of illegal liquor seized and was transporting in the vehicle and also stored in his bike bearing No.KA-03-JA-2830 without any valid permit and license in order to sell and CW.1 conducted raid panchanama and seized the liquor bottles.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined the person, who accompanied CW.1 and assisted with the raid panchanama i.e., CW.2 as PW.1, complainant - C.W.1 as P.W.2 and the investigation officer CW.06 as PW.3.
7 CC.No.974/202210. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 - Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.1(a) - Signature, Ex.P.2 - Model Seal, Ex.P.2(a) & (b) - Signature, Ex.P.3 - Search Warrant, Ex.P.3(a) - Signature, Ex.P.4 - FIR, Ex.P.4(a) - Signature, Ex.P.5 - Permission Letter, Ex.P.5(a) - Signature, Ex.P.6 - Letter to RTO, Ex.P.6(a) - Signature, Ex.P.7 - B- Register Extract, Ex.P.8 - Spot Location Inspection, Ex.P.8(a) - Signature, Ex.P.9 - Requisition, Ex.P.9(a) & (b) - Signature, Ex.P.10 - FSL Report, Ex.P.11 and 12 - Notices, Ex.P.11(a) & 12(a) - Signatures, Ex.P.13 - Notice, Ex.P.13(a) - Signature, Ex.P.14 & 15 - Notices to accused, Ex.P.14(a) & (b) and Ex.P.15(a) & (b) - Signatures, Ex.P.16 - Statement of accused, Ex.P.16(a) - Signature and bottles of liquor taken out for sample as M.O.1 to M.O.20.
11. To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the liquid seized under bottles are all liquor. To prove the said fact, the prosecution has relied on Certificate issued by the Chemical Examiner. I have perused the evidence of C.W.1, wherein, he deposed that, he has seized in the presence of panchas the liquors as stated in earlier paragraphs.
12. On perusal of the materials on record and on going through the prosecution papers, the samples have been sent for chemical examination to F.S.L, Bengaluru. Further, chemical 8 CC.No.974/2022 examiner by name Dr.Yashwanthkumar.G.S has examined the same and issued a report, which is marked at Ex.P.10. On going through the said report, there is no dispute with respect to certificate issued by the Chemical Examiner. On perusal of the Certificate, it is clear that liquid sent for chemical examination in this case do contain alcohol. As per section 59(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, the said certificate can be looked into even though Chemical Examiner has not been examined, on plain reading of Chemical Examination Report, it is clear that, M.O.1 to MO.20 marked in this case do contain alcohol.
13. The next important aspect which the prosecution has to prove is that, seized liquors are more than prescribed limit as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise Act & Rules. As per Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport etc.,) Rules, 1967, a person can possess & transport liquor upto 4.6 liters. Here, in this case, the police authorities have seized in all 34.56 Liters of liquor, which is more than prescribed limit. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove that quantity of liquid alleged to be liquor in possession of the accused was more than the prescribed limit under the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act & Rules.
14. It is first & foremost burden upon the prosecution in order to connect the accused with the alleged possession and selling of the aforementioned liquor. In that regard, the prosecution, inspite of providing sufficient opportunities have 9 CC.No.974/2022 failed to secure the presence of seizure panchas and have examined them. The police witnesses namely, C.W.1, CW.2 & C.W.6 have supported the case of prosecution. Their evidence appears to be formal in nature. The evidence of police officials are contrary with the documentary evidence and it creates a doubt regarding seizure of liquor from the custody of the accused. It is further pertinent to note here that, there is presumption in favour of prosecution that, in any of prosecution under Section 32 and 34, it may be presumed until contrary is proved that, the accused has committed an offences punishable under that section in respect of,
(a) Any intoxicant; or
(b) xxxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxxx For the possession of which, the prosecution is unable to account satisfactorily. I have closely perused Section 40, on plain perusal, it is manifest that, presumption available under Section 40 of Karnataka Excise Act can be drawn only when prosecution proves that accused persons were in possession of seized articles. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the seizure of liquor bottles from the custody of accused and in order to prove the seizure of liquor bottles, the prosecution has failed to lead the evidence of seizure panchas, as such the prosecution has failed to prove the panchanamas and just because C.W.1 has stated that, he has seized liquor contained bottles from the 10 CC.No.974/2022 custody of the accused, one cannot presume in the absence of corroboration, the things spoken by C.W.1 as true and as author of Ex.P.1 i.e, Seizure Mahazar panchas have not been secured, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that, the liquor bottles, MO.1 to 20 were seized from the custody of accused.
15. Further it is germane to state that, even if the case of prosecution admitted on face of it, it is specific case of prosecution that, in all total 34.56 liters of liquor have been seized and were sent for chemical examination. On perusal of Ex.P.10, the Chemical Examiner has opined that, the MOs sent for Chemical Examination do contain ethyl alcohol, which meets the standards prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards and is fit for consumption.
16. It is the settled law that the criminal trial always shaddled with the presumption of innocence of the accused. However, the act under which the accused is charged does contain some of the presumptory provisions, in view of aforesaid observations they all do not help the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged guilt. In view of discussions made above, I am of opinion that, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
11 CC.No.974/202217. POINT No.4 :- In view of discussion and conclusion arrived at point No.1, the Accused is entitled for acquittal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 32, 38(a) & 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months and thereafter it shall be canceled without any further orders.
M.O.1 to 20 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 07th Day of January, 2026). Digitally signed by GIRISH GIRISH CHATNI CHATNI Date: 2026.01.12 10:29:31 +0530 (GIRISH CHATNI) XXIX ACJM, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-
P.W.1 : Maruthi Prasad
12 CC.No.974/2022
P.W.2 : Roopesh Kumar.A
P.W.3 : Gurudath
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.1 : Spot panchanama
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature
Ex.P.2 : Model Seal
Ex.P.2(a) & (b) : Signatures
Ex.P.3 : Search Warrant
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature
Ex.P.5 : Permission Letter
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature
Ex.P.6 : Letter to RTO
Ex.P.6(a) : Signature
Ex.P.7 : B-Register Extract
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature
Ex.P.8 : Spot Location Inspection
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature
Ex.P.9 : Requisition
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature
Ex.P.10 : FSL Report
Ex.P.11 and 12 : Notices
Ex.P.11(a) and : Signatures
12(a)
Ex.P.13 : Notice
13 CC.No.974/2022
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature
Ex.P.14 & 15 : Notices to accused
Ex.P.14(a) & (b) : Signatures
Ex.P.15(a) & (b) : Signatures
Ex.P.16 : Statement of accused
Ex.P.16(a) : Signature
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
- NIL -
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
M.O.1 to 20 : Sample Liquor Bottles
GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH CHATNI
CHATNI Date: 2026.01.12
10:29:26 +0530
(GIRISH CHATNI)
XXIX ACJM, BENGALURU