Bangalore District Court
Shreeshail Vadeyar vs Vinod Kumar on 3 June, 2025
KABC030246082021
Digitally signed
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY by
DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 05-04-2021
Registered on : 05-04-2021
Decided on : 03-06-2025
Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 28 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 03rd Day of June, 2025
C.C. No.8900/2021
Crime No.1/2020-21/76SIE2/763606
State by Excise Police Station,
T.Dasarahalli Division,
Bengaluru City. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Vinod Kumar,
Major,
S/o Sri Venkatamareddy,
R/at No.A-19, Sector -02,
HMT Colony, Jalahalli Village,
Bengaluru-13. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Chidananda.N.M., Advocate)
KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
1. Date of commission of 06-07-2020 at 5.30 p.m.
offence
2. Date of FIR 07-07-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 27-10-2020
4.Name of Complainant Excise Sub Inspector,
Office of Joint
Commissioner of Excise,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 14, 15, 32,
38(A), 43 of Karnataka
Excise Act.
6. Date of framing of 15-11-2021
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 27-12-2021
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 03-06-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 03-06-2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
2
KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
JUDGMENT
The Excise Sub-Inspector of T. Dasarahalli Division, Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 06-07-2020 at about 5.30 p.m., situated at house No.A-19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division, the accused without any license was in possession of 4.500 liters of liquor of 3 100 Piper Blender scotch wishky each measuring 750 ML and 3 Teachers 50 blender scotch wiskhy each measuring 750 ML which was mentioned as "for Sale to Defence Personnel only" in a black colour almairah for the purpose of sale thereby the accused committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of credible information, CW7/PW4 - Sri Narayanaswamy.M., Excise Sub Inspector, along with his staff conducted raid in the house of the accused by preparing the reasons for not obtaining the search warrant from Jurisdictional Magistrate and seized the MO1 through Ex.P1 and the sample seal as per Ex.P4 and subjected to confiscated list of properties as per Ex.P7 and registered FIR.
3 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/20214. Investigation: Thereafter, after registration of FIR, CW6 Shreeshail Vedeyar sent the seized bottles, collected the report and after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet for the alleged offences against the accused.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
6. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 14-10-2020.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused, charge for the offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 7 witnesses, examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents and MO1 and closed their side. The examination fo 4 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 CW4 was given up by the order dated 07/12/2022. the examination of CW2 and CW6 was given up by the order dated 02/06/2025 as did not secure despite several opportunities were provided for securing their presence to the Excise Police Authority.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he 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 06-07-2020 at about 5.30 p.m., situated at house No.A-19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division, the accused without any license had possessed totaling to 5 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 4.500 liters of liquor of various brands which was mentioned as "for Sale only to Defence Personnel" in a black colour almairah for the purpose of sale thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 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 has examined the witnesses which are as follows i. CW3 Sri Raveev Babu, the Excise Inspector, examined as PW1 deposed that on 06-07-2020, while he and his staff were patrolling in T. Dasarahalli area, at 5.00 pm, on information received by the Excise 6 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 Superintendent that liquor was being sold illegally in Jalahalli HMT Colony, he took pancha witnesses as CW1 and CW2 and went to HMT Colony Sector No. 2 and A19 in the government vehicle at 5.15 pm and knocked the door of the house but did not get any response and the accused ran away from the back door. Later, they informed the neighbors, prepared memo for not obtaining search warrant and searched the house. They found 100 Pipers 3 bottles of whiskey, and 3 bottles of Teachers' 50 whiskey in a black cupboard inside the house and when they checked the same, they found it marked as "Sale for Defense Person Only." Later, they seized them through a panchanama as per Ex.P1. He identified his signature as Ex.P1A. He had given a statement before the IO and identified the bottles as MO1.
ii. CW1/PW2, Sri Premkumar, pancha witness deposed that, In 2020, the Excise Police on search found that the accused kept liquor bottles in a cupboard in T Dasarahalli HMT Colony to sell the liquor without any license and seized the same through panchanama as per Ex.P1 and identified his signature as Ex.P1A. He had given a statement before the IO and identified the bottles as MO1.
iii. CW5/PW3 by name Sri Nagendra, deposed that the accused, who is his distant relative gave the accused a house in Sector No.A9, HMT Colony, 7 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 Jalahalli, for residential use in the year 2020, but no document was provided in this regard. The accused lived in the said house for a month.
iv. CW7/PW4 Sri M.Narayanaswamy, the Excise Sub inspector and informant deposed that, on 06-07- 2020, while patrolling on BEL Road, on the basis of information received, they went to the said place with five people and knocked the door of the house but did not get any response and the accused ran away from the house. When they asked the neighbors, they said that his name was Vinod Kumar's father Venkataramana Reddy, House No.19, Sector No.2 HMT Colony Jalahalli Village, Bangalore. Since there was no time to get serach warrant from the court to search the house, the reasons for non-obtaining the search warrant was prepared at the spot under Section 54 of K E Act 1965 Act. When the police officer searched the house and found 100 Pipers 3 bottles of 750 ml whiskey and 3 bottles of 750 ml Teachers 50 blended whiskey were found and it was mentioned as sale for defense only. He identified his signature on Ex.P4 to Ex.P7.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 14, 15, 38(A) and 32 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which reads as under 8 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
14. 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 licence 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 licence prohibited.- (1) No intoxicant shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf:
9 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021Provided 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 licence 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 licence 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 authorise.
(2) A licence for sale under sub-
section (1), shall be granted,-
(a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the sale is within a district, or 10 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
(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 licence for sale granted under the Excise law in force in any other State may be deemed to be a licence 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 except under the authority of and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf by the Excise Commissioner and on payment of such fees according to 11 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 licence or permit granted under this Act, imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant, shall, on conviction, 1 [be punished for each offence 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 offence shall be not less than [one year rigorous 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.] 12 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 (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 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 13 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 ;
It appears Ex.P1 is a spot cum seizure mahazar under which liquor bottles were seized from the house of PW3 namely Sri Nagendra and the prosecution has produced the agreement between the PW3 and the accused which was said to have executed on 07/02/2020 as per Ex.P3 but the signature of the PW3 on the Ex.P3 is different from the signature signed by the PW3 on the deposition and deposed that he did not execute any agreement with the accused. No doubt, the PW1 had tendered the reasons for non-obtaining the search warrant as he got the information before ½ hour i.e., at 5 pm. It appears from the record that the occurrence of offence was taken place at 5.30 pm on 06/07/2020 14 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 but the FIR Crime No.1/2020 was registered on 07/07/2020 and the FIR is silent when the information was received. The Ex.P1 seizure mahazar was drawn on 06/07/2020 from 5.30 pm till 6.30 pm at house No.A-19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division, Bangalore in the presence of CW2 namely Sri Premkumar S/o. Puttaswamiah aged about 52 years, resident of D group Layout, Andhrahalli, Bangalore and CW3 namely Sri Anil Kumar S/o. Muniraj aged about 30 years, resident of Mathikere by the PW1. Thus, it is clear that case was not registered against the accused as on the date of seizure of alleged liquor bottles from the alleged house of accused. The search and seizure conducted by CW3/PW1 without registration of FIR in respect of cognizable offence is unsustainable in law.
16. 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 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 15 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 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 16 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 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 17 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 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 18 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 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 19 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 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 PW1 is contrary to the law and the same is 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.
17. PW1 namely Sri Premkumar deposed that he has seen the accused in the house (at the alleged spot) but the PW1 deposed that when he was knocking the door and did not get any response and hence called up the neighbours and knocked the door but one person ran away from the back door and 20 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 hence the version of the PW2 who claimed to be independent witnesses cannot be be relied upon as the PW1 himself did not see the accused and the seizure from the house No.A-19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division. Merely the signature of the PW2 was identified on the Ex.P1 (seizure mahazar), the evidence of PW2 is contrary to the case of prosecution as police witnesses who was present did not see the accused thereby this court cannot give any evidentiary value to the deposition of PW2.
18. It appears from the record that letter dated 17/10/2020 that one B S Nagendra (PW3) who is working in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore is residing in the house No.A- 19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division and such being the case, how the said quarters could be given to the accused by the PW3, so the document Ex.P3 was completely denied by the PW3 and hence no credential value of evidence could be given to agreement which was alleged to have been executed by the PW3 in favour of accused permitting him and his wife to stay in the quarters. If the PW3 permitted the accused to stay in the said address, then, why address of the PW3 was given the same address of spot in the charge sheet as house No.A-19, HMT colony, Sector-02, Jalahalli Village, Bangalore, and 21 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 then where was the PW3 was staying in the said address. Thus, the prosecution paper i.e., letter dated 17/10/2020 issued by HMT Limited Auxiliary Business Division, Jalahalli, Bangalore and the charge sheet is clear that the accused was not staying in the house No.A-19, HMT colony, Sector-02, Jalahalli Village, Bangalore and it is the PW3 was in occupation of the house along with the deposition which reads as under
xxxx ನಿಪಿ 3 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ವಿಚಾರಗಳು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ 3 ರನ್ನು ಯಾರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ, ಯಾವ ದಿನಾಂಕದಂದು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ 3ಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
in addition to which, PW4 deposed that xxxxxxx ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆರೋಪಿತನಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಇತರೆ ವಸ್ತುಗಳು ಇದ್ದು ಆದರೆ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ.
There is no document produced to substantiate that the accused was in possession of alleged spot thereby the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Shantabai Gurunath Jadhav vs State reported in 2017 (1) AKR 365.22 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
19. It appears from the Ex.P1 (seizure cum spot mahazar) that the spot was drawn at house No.A-19, HMT colony, Jalahalli Village, Sector-02, within the limits of T. Dasarahalli Division, Bangalore and bounded on the East by road, West by vacant site, North by house No. A-20, and south by House No. A-
18. It is clear from Ex.P1 that there were residential houses on the North and South of the spot and such being the case, why the PW1 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;
Section 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 23 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021 (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 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 though the PW4 deposed in the cross examination as under
"ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸದ ಮನೆಗಳು ಇವೆ. ದಾಳಿ ನಡೆಸುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕದವರನ್ನು ಕರೆಯಿಸಿ ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಮನೆಯವರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯ ನಕ್ಷೆಯನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ದಾಳಿ ನಡಿಸಿದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಘಟನಾ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕ ಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರು ಇದ್ದರೋ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.24 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
However the PW4 has not made any 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) as the pancha witnesses namely CW2 and CW3 are from Mathikere and Andhrahalli 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. If there was liquors in the house belongs to the defense so to attract the Section 32 of KE Act.
20. It appears from the record that the CW6 did not investigate about the source of bottles to whom these bottles were supplied or what was the relationship of accused with the said purchaser of liquors and when it was sold and from which canteen, it was purchased, no particulars of information were secured by the IO. CW6 did not investigate the military canteen in charger to whom these 6 bottles were sold to him.
21. PW1 did not take photograph or video graphed the seizure procedure. Therefore, it is safe to hold that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answers the above point No.1 in the negative.25 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
22. 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 is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of June, 2025) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
26 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Rajeev Babu PW2: Sri Premkumar PW3: Sri B. S Nagendra PW4: Sri M.Narayanaswamy
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1: Seizure mahazar/PW1
Ex.P2: Statement of PW3
Ex.P3: Agreement dated 07/02/2020/PW3
Ex.P4: Complaint dated 06/07/2020/PW4
Ex.P5: Notice to Panchas/PW4
Ex.P6: Reasons for non obtaining search
warrant/PW4
Ex.P7: List of articles /PW4
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
[ MO1 : 6 bottles/PW1 Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.27 KABC030246082021 CC 8900/2021
03-06-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43 of Karnataka Excise Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 28