Bangalore District Court
Excise Department, Rmv Range vs Geetha R on 2 December, 2025
KABC030093862023
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 02-03-2023
Registered on : 02-03-2023
Decided on : 02-12-2025
Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 0 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 02nd Day of December, 2025
C.C. No.5840/2023
Crime No.17/2022-23/3607IE/360707
State by Excise Police Station,
R.M.V Range,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Smt. Geetha.R.,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri Radhakrishnan,
R/at No.104, MCR Complex,
6th Main, Rama temple,
Near Reliance, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru - 75.
KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023
Permanent address:
No.148/B/A, Suprithi
Residency, Ground Floor,
2nd Main, 4th Cross,
New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru - 75.
2. Sri Rakesh.N.G.,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.69, 5th Block,
KHB Colony, Near Ganesha
Temple, Koramangala,
Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Rep. by Sri Nataraj.K. Adv for Accused No.1 )
(Rep. by Sri Nagabhushan.K. Adv for Accused No.2 )
1. Date of commission of 02-11-2022 at 5.50 pm
offence
2. Date of FIR 02-11-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 08-02-2023
4. Name of Complainant Smt Premalatha. B. R.,
Excise Inspector
5. Offences complained of Under Section 11, 14, 15,
32, 38(A) and 43(A)
Karnataka Excise Act.
2
KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023
6. Date of framing of 15-11-2024
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 25-03-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 26-11-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 02-12-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Excise Inspector, R.M.V. Range, Bengaluru City submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 ans 2 for the offences punishable under Section 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 02-11-2022 at 5.50 pm, near Nagashettyhalli Railway Gate, within the limits of RMV Excise Range, Bangalore City, the accused No.1 and 2 was in illegal possession and was 3 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 transporting total 8.25 liters of Defense liquor of various brands in a cardboard box on Yamaha Cygnus Alpha two-wheeler bearing Reg.No. KA 03 J D 3131 for the purpose of sale thereby violated the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act.
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of credible information, CW7/PW2-Smt. Premalatha.B.R., Excise Inspector seized 11 different brands of bottles belongs to defence personnel totaling to 8.25 liters and vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA 03 JD 3131 as per seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1 and had taken 6 different brands for chemical examination from 5.50 pm to 7.30 pm and submitted FIR as per Ex.P7 was registered and handed over the case papers to CW8.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from PW2, CW8/PW3 Sri Lingaraju Babu, Excise Sub-Inspector, secured FSL report as Ex.P10 and B extract of vehicle, recorded the statement of requisite witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the accused No.1 and 2.
4 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/20236. At the pre- cognizance stage, the accused No.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 04/11/2022.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 and 2.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and counsel for accused No.1 and 2, charge for the offences punishable under Section 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 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 8 witnesses, examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents and MO1 and closed their side. On account of examination of PW1 and PW3, the examination of CW4 and CW5 given up by the order dated 13-05- 2025. Process of proclamation against CW1 and CW2 returned un-executed for 5 dates of hearing and the process of CW6 returned un-served.
5 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/202310. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused 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 02-11-2022 at 5.50 pm near Nagashettyhalli Railway Gate, within the limits of RMV Excise Range, Bangalore City, the accused No.1 and 2 was in illegal possession and transporting a total 8.25 liters of defense liquor of various brands in a cardboard box in a Yamaha Cygnus Alpha two-wheeler bearing Reg.No. KA 03 J D 3131 for the purpose of sale thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 11, 14, 6 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) 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;
i. CW1 Sri Malakana Gowda, Excise constable examined as PW1 and deposed that, on 02-11-2022, he along with the CW7, raided on accused near railway crossing in Nagashetty and on search found 11 bottles of liquor in a cardboard box marked as defence service only in vehicle No.KA-03-JD-3131. Out of the 11 bottles, 6 bottles were sealed to be sent for chemical examination and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P1 from 5-50 to 7-30, the seized liquors and the vehicle were taken into custody 7 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 and produced before the police station. He identified 6 sample bottles collectively as MO1.
ii. CW7 Smt. Premalatha B. R., Excise Inspector examined as PW2 deposed that on 02-11-2022 on receipt of credible information, she along with her staff, pancha witnesses were raided on vehicle bearing Reg.KA-03 JD 3131 and found that there were various brands of liquors belongs to defence personnel, due to lack of time to obtain search warrant from court, she prepared the reasons for not obtaining the search warrant and total of 8.25 liters of liquor seized, 6 bottles of liquors were taken for chemical examination through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1. Thereafter she registered FIR as per Ex.P7 against accused persons and handed over the case papers to CW8. She identified the notice given to pancha witnesses as per Ex.P2, the reasons assigned for not obtaining search warrant as per Ex.P3, notice given to accused No.1 as per Ex.P4, List of articles as per Ex.P5, sample seal as per Ex.P6.
iii. CW8 namely Sri Lingaraju Babu, the then Excise Sub-Inspector examined as PW3 deposed that after receipt of case papers from PW2, the seized liquors were sent to FSL for chemical examination through CW5 and FSL report as per Ex.P10 was received, he secured the B-register extract, recorded 8 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and recorded the statements of CW1 to CW4, after investigation filed charge report.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which reads as under
11. Transport of intoxicant.- No intoxicant exceeding such quantity as may be prescribed either generally or for any local area shall be transported, except under a permit issued under section 12.
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 9 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 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;10 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023
(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.
(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 11 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 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 12 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 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 13 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 or sold along with, or in addition 14 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 from the record that the search warrant from magistrate could not be secured for search of vehicle used by accused No.1 and 2 for transportation of seized 11 different brands of bottles belongs to defence personnel totaling to 8.25 liters.
16. Added to which, pancha witnesses namely CW1 namely Sri Vinay Kumar S/o Govindraju resident of No.13, 18th Main, K. N. Extension, Yashwanthpura, Bangalore and CW2 namely Sri Prathap S/o Srinivas resident of No.2, II Main road, Hoysala Nagar, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore are not resident of Nagashettyhalli and added to which their 15 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 presence could not be secured despite proclamation was issued. Raiding officer/PW2 has not stated about the non-compliance as per Section 100 of CR.P.C whilst drawing Ex.P1 on 02-11-2022. 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 (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 16 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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.
Coupled with the cross examination of PW2/raiding officer ಘಟನೆ ಸ್ಥಳಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಬರುವಾಗ ನಾಗಶೆಟ್ಟಿ ಹಳ್ಳಿ ರೈಲ್ವೆ ಕ್ರಾಸ್ ಬಳಿ ನಿಂತಿದ್ದರು. ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ನಾನೇ ಮೊದಲು ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಚಾಸಾ.1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ರವರು ಬೆಲ್ ಸರ್ಕಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಘಟನೆಯ ಸ್ಥಳ ಜನಸಂದಣಿ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯರು ಯಾರೂ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಬೇರೆ ಒಬ್ಬರು ಓಡಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಸ್ಥಳೀಯರನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ಬರಲು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ಅವರು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ಬರಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಚಾಸಾ.1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ರವರನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ನಿಪಿ.1ಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಜಪ್ತಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ವಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಮಾರ್ಟ್ ಫೋನ್ ಗಳು ಇತ್ತು ಅದರಿಂದ ನಾವು ಫೋಟೋ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಡಿಯೆಾೕವನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.1ನ್ನು ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಎಂ.ಓ.1ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮದ್ಯ ಇತ್ತ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ಲೇಬಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
17 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023ಘಟನೆಯ ಸ್ಥಳದ ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳು ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 2ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯಿಂದ ಎಂ.ಓ.1ನ್ನು ಅವರ ವಶದಿಂದ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಮ್ಮ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯು ತ್ತಾರೆ.
As per Section 100 of Cr.P.C., the police authority has to make an attempt to call for independent inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence. However, Ex.P1 does not depict that the PW2 had made attempt to call local inhabitants though there were commercial buildings around the alleged spot. Under Section 100(8) of Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non-willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution under section 187 of IPC. If the independent witnesses were not available for search, the PW2/raiding authority could have secured the independent witnesses from other locality despite the availability of witnesses as there being movement of people in the alleged spot. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity 18 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 as per Ex.P1, makes the version of prosecution highly doubtful.
17. PW2 did not take photographs or video graphed about the seizure procedure whilst seizing liquors through Ex.P1 despite factum she was carrying smart phone.
18. The alleged offences are being cognizable offence however the PW2 proceeded with investigation without registration of FIR. In this regard, the court has cross examined PW2 wherein deposed that ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಃ ದಾಳಿ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ ಆದ ನಂತರ ಎಫ್.ಐ.ಆರ್ ನ್ನು ನೊಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
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 given in writing or reduced to writing 19 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have 20 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 21 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 22 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 23 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 officer/PW2 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.
19. It appears from the record that the seizure mahazar was not signed by the accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P1 through seizure mahazar though there were present at the spot.
24 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/202320. 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 79 mentioned in the sample seal and the Ex.P1 (seizure mahazar does not depict the particulars of sample seal). However, the sample seal was not prepared at the spot and the same is prepared at the office wherein it bears the crime No. 17/2022-2023 and the said seal handed over to any independent superior officer. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW2(raiding officer) and PW3 IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent superior officer. The 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 25 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 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..."....
It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to her superior officer. Even the I.O. PW2 raiding officer and PW3/IO did not utter a word regarding the handing over of the seal after use to his superior officer. Therefore, the 26 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 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 PW2 failed to handover the specimen seal to his superior officer immediately after the alleged seizure.
21. The learned counsel for accused No. 1 has cross examined the PW3 as to the source of bottle and the same has been reiterated as under
1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಫಾ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಓದಿ ಹೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ಅವರ ತಂಗಿ ಗಂಡ ಪಾರ್ಟಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಬರಲು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಆರೋಪಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಹಾಗೇ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ತಂಗಿಯ ಗಂಡ Army ಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಬಾಟಲಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅವರು ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ತನಿಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ ತಂಗಿಯ ಗಂಡ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ತನಿಖೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯ 27 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 ತಂಗಿಯ ಗಂಡನಿಂದ ತಂದು ಬೇರೋಬ್ಬರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೀನಿ ಎಂದು 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಯವರೇ ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿ ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಎಂಬ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಖರೀದಿದಾರರನ್ನು ನೋಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
Thus, it is clear that the accused No.1 has taken defence bottles from her brother-in-law (sister's husband) and was taking the same for partying as per her voluntary statement. No investigation was done as to the brother in law of accused No.1 was supplied the defense liquor bottles to her or which the military canteen for having supplied defense liquor bottles to the accused No.1.
22. Except sending the 6 bottles for sending FSL, the status of remaining liquors were not furnished to this court to corroborate about the quantity of seizure of 11 defense liquors from the alleged possession of accused No. 1 and 2.
23. In the present case, on perusal of the entire evidence, except the evidence of police witnesses namely PW1 to PW3, 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. More so the prosecution failed to prove the seizure 28 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 mahazar through independent witnesses. 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.
24. 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 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) 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.29 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023
(iv) MO1 is 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 02nd day of December, 2025) DEEPA Digitally signed VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Malakana Gowda /Pancha witness/ Excise Constable PW2: Smt. Premalatha.B.R/Excise Inspector PW3: Sri Lingaraju Babu /Excise Sub Inspector Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Mahazar/PW1 Ex.P2 : Notice to pancha/PW2 Ex.P3 : Search Without warrant/PW2 Ex.P4 : Notice to Accused No.1/PW2 Ex.P5 : List of Articles/PW2 30 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023 Ex.P6 : Sample Seal/PW2 Ex.P7 : FIR/PW2 Ex.P8 : Letter Dtd: 15-11-2022 addressed to FSL/PW3 Ex.P9 : Letter Dtd: 08-12-2022 addressed to RTO, Indiranagara/PW3 Ex.P10 : Report of Chemical Analysis/PW3
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Sample bottles Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil DEEPA Digitally signed VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.31 KABC030093862023 CC 5840/2023
02-12-2025 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 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) 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 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 32