Bangalore District Court
Munireddy Palya Excise Ps vs Raja Rao on 18 September, 2025
KABC030096632023 Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 04-03-2023
Registered on : 04-03-2023
Decided on : 18-09-2025
Duration : 2 years, 6 months, 14 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 18th Day of September, 2025
C.C. No.6020/2023
Crime No.23/2022-23/3708IE/370808
State by Excise Police Station,
Munireddypalay Range,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Rajarao,
Major in age,
S/o Sri Premanatha Rao Yadav,
R/at No.58, 1st Main Road,
3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden,
R.T.Nagara, Bengaluru. ... Accused
(Represented by Sri. Prabhakaran Adv for Accused)
KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
1. Date of commission of 18-11-2022 at 10.30 am
offence
2. Date of FIR 18-11-2022
3. Date of Charge sheet 08-02-2023
4.Name of Complainant Sri Somshekar M.R.,
Excise Inspector,
Munireddypalya Range
11, BUD-02, Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 14, 15, 32,
34, 38(A) Karnataka
Excise Act.
6. Date of framing of 28-01-2023
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 04-07-2025
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 18-09-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 18-09-2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
2
KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
JUDGMENT
The Excise Sub-Inspector, Munireddypalya Range, (BUD-2), Bengaluru City submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 34, 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 18-11-2022 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused was in possession of 13 bottles of 100 Piper Deluxe Blender scotch whiskey totaling to 9.750 liquors belongs to defence personnel in his house bearing No.34, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, within the limits of Munireddy Palya Excise Range for the purpose of sale without having any license.
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of credible information, CW1/PW3 seized 10 bottles belongs to defence personnel as per seizure mahazar at Ex.P1 from 10.30 am to 11.30 am and submitted the report as per Ex.P9 and FIR as per Ex.P10 was registered.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers from CW1, CW10/PW6 secured property particulars of incident place obtained as per Ex.P13 and secured the chemical analysis report as per Ex.P14 and after completion of investigation, PW6 submitted charge sheet against the accused.
3 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/20235. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance of offences alleged against the accused.
6. The accused was enlarged on bail by the order dated 04/03/2024
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, 34, 38(A) 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 10 witnesses, examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents and MO1 to MO4 and closed their side. On account of examination of CW5, the examination of CW6 to CW8 was given up and advocate for accused has not objection to mark the FSL report and the FSL report is marked as Ex.P14 and hence the examination of CW9 was given up by the order dated 29/08/2025.
4 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/202310. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused 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 18-11-2022 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused was in possession of 13 bottles of 100 Piper Deluxe Blender scotch whiskey totaling to 9.750 liquors belonged to defence personnel in his house bearing No.34, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, within the limits of Munireddy Palya Excise Range for the purpose of sale without having any license thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under 5 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 Section 14, 15, 32, 34, 38(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 Sandeep, pancha witness examined as PW1 deposed that he identified his signature on seizure cum spot Mahazar, notice, reasons assigned for not obtaining search warrant, sample seal, and seized list of articles at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 as Ex.P1A, Ex.P2A, Ex.P3A, Ex.P4A and Ex.P5A by stating that he was running a bakery in the accused's building. On 18-11-2022, the excise police searched the house on the 3rd floor of the accused and found 13 bottles of 100 Piper whiskey in 6 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 the bed room under the bed and obtained his signatures and CW3 on seizure mahazar and identified as MO1 to MO4. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P6.
ii. CW3/PW2 Sri Shabish, pancha witness deposed that he identified his signatures on seizure cum spot Mahazar, notice, reasons assigned for not obtaining search warrant, sample seal, and seized list of articles at Ex.P1, Ex.P7 and Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 as Ex.P1B, Ex.P7A, Ex.P3B, Ex.P4B and Ex.P5B by stating that he was running a bakery in the accused's building. On 18-11-2022, the excise police searched the house on the 3rd floor of the accused and found 13 bottles of 100 Piper whiskey in the bed room under the bed and obtained his signatures and CW2 on seizure mahazar and identified as MO1 to MO4. His denial of statement given before the police is marked as Ex.P8.
iii. CW1 namely Sri Somashekar.M.R, being informant and Excise Inspector, examined as PW3 on 18-11-2022, on the basis of information received, the workers working in the bakery and the persons present at No.34, 3rd Cross Road, Thimmaiah Garden, were questioned and the house belonging to Rajarao and Premnath on the 3rd floor of the said address was visited in the presence of five witnesses, CW2 and CW3. The house was locked. The mother of the 7 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 accused, Sunandabai, who was on the 2nd floor, came and opened the door of the house and cooperated for searching the house. The reason was prepared at the spot for not obtaining the search warrant from the magistrate and a cloth bag with the words "Chinese Chinese Mouth Freshener" written on the bag in the bedroom of the house was searched wherein total of 13 bottles 100 Pepper Deluxe Whiskey of each measuring 750 ml were found in their possession and out of which 4 bottles of liquor were found in the bag. The liquor bottles were sealed for chemical examination which were with label of "For sale to defence personnel only". Later, the seized liquors were brought to the office, a complaint was filed as per Ex.P9, a case was registered as per Ex.P10, and after conducting a search, the statement of the accused's mother namely Smt.Sunanda Bai, who is the owner of the house was recorded, and the seized liquors were sent for chemical examination through CW5 and for further investigation was handed over to CW10, and the notice given to CW4 was identified as Ex.P11 and MO1 to 4 and his signatures on Ex.P1 to 5, 7 therein.
iv. CW4/PW4 Manjunatha pancha witness deposed by identifying his on signatures in Ex.P1, 3 to 5 and 11, so his signatures were identified as Ex.P1D, Ex.P3D, Ex.P4D, Ex.P5D and Ex.P11B respectively. The police obtained his signature by showing his liquor bottles in their office. Two other 8 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 persons signed along with him and he does not know his names and identified the accused as he has seen him for the first time in the the court. He had not given any statement to the police in this regard. He identified the MO1 to MO4.
v. CW5 by name Sri Rangappa.G, the then Excise Inspector examined as PW5 Manjunatha who accompanied PW1 during the raid, deposed the same version of PW1.
vi. CW10 namely Sri Ashok Savalagi, the then Excise Sub Inspector examined as PW6 as he received the case papers from CW1, addressed a correspondence to the BBMP office as per Ex.P13 for ascertaining the owner of spot where the alleged liquors was seized and he secured the reply as per Ex.P14 that incident place is in the name of the accused's mother Sunanda Bai. He recorded the statements of CW2 to CW4 and the voluntary statement of accused and after investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 14, 15, 32, 34, 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which reads as under 9 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
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 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:
10 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023Provided 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.
(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 11 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
(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 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 12 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 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 13 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 It appears from the record that the search warrant from magistrate could not be secured for search of house bearing No.34, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, within the limits of Munireddy Palya Excise Range and the reasons assigned for not obtaining search warrant was prepared on 18-11-2022 at 10.00 am.
16. Admittedly, the accused was not present at the time of search.
14 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/202317. Added to which, pancha witnesses namely CW2 namely Sri Sandeep, CW3 namely Sri Sabresh and CW4 namely C. Manjunath are independent witnesses claims to be resident of No. 58, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bangalore and No. 91/1, Dasappa Garden, Bangalore - 560032 however they supported the prosecution case partially that CW2 and CW3 were running the bakery in the accused building i.e., No.58, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bangalore and another one was passerby who came to the Bakery for drinking tea. Raiding authority/PW3 has not stated about the non-compliance as per Section 100 of CR.P.C in Ex.P1. It appears from the Ex.P1 that the alleged spot was bounded on the East by Road lead to Dinnur Main Road to J. C. Nagar , West by house belongs to Mahesh S/o. Krishnojirao, North by Lakki Chicken Stall and South by Thimmaiah Garden 3rd cross Road. 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 15 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 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 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 16 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 to be made in their presence. Under Section 100(8) of Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non- willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. If the witnesses from local inhabitants were not available for search, the PW3/raiding authority could have secured the local independent witnesses from other locality despite the availability of witnesses on western and northern side Mahesh and Lakkhi Chicken Stall that too in the morning. No sincere attempts were made by the PW3/raiding authority to join public local inhabitant witnesses in the present case and in furtherance PW3 did not utter a word why he made PW1 and PW2 and PW4 as witnesses by excluding the local inhabitant independent witnesses. Therefore, non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law, even though independent public witnesses were easily available around the alleged spot as per Ex.P1, makes the version of prosecution highly doubtful.
18. CW10/PW4 is the investigating officer after the receipt of case papers, neither visited the spot nor enquired with accused and based upon available records, has mechanically submitted the charge sheet without ascertaining the veracity of Ex.P1 (spot cum seizure mahazar).
19. In furtherance it is the specific defence of accused that whilst preparing the mahazar as per Ex.P1, they could have written batch number and 17 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 serial number and manufacturing date of (MO1-4) but no particulars were available on record to connect the accused and no complete description of (MO1-4) as to batch numbers, serial numbers, manufactured date and company name is mentioned in Ex.P1.
20. It appears from the record that the CW10/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 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.
21. Added to which, PW6 could have secured the source of liquor bottles from the label number however no steps were taken to know who has supplied the defense liquor bottles.
22. PW6 did not take photographs or video graphs about the seizure procedure.
23. It appears from the record that the partition deed was produced to corroborate that the house was in the joint name of mother of accused namely 18 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 Sunanda Bai and the accused however the anticipatory bail order furnished by the IO/PW6 depicts that the accused was residing at No.58, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bangalore and not spot i.e., house bearing No.34, 3rd Cross, Thimmaiah Garden, Bangalore. IO/PW6 did not produce any single piece of paper that the accused was residing in the alleged spot. Mere production of joint title deed i.e., Partition Deed having allotted to the accused and his mother cannot be considered as a sole ground for possession of the accused when the Ex.P14 i.e., letter from BBMP on 05/01/2023 does not depict that the alleged property is in the name of accused. Prosecution has not explained through IO/PW6 that house bearing No. 34 and building No.58 are one and the same.
24. The alleged offences are being cognizable offence however the PW1 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 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;19 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
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 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 20 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the 21 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 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 22 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her 23 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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/PW3 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. 24 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
25. Though the PW5 has seized 13 bottles of 100 Piper Deluxe Blender scotch whiskey totaling to 9.750 liquors however it appears from the Ex.P1 (seizure mahazar and Ex.P14(FSL report dated 06/12/2022) only 4 bottles were sealed for sending the bottles for chemical examination however PW6 has not uttered about the status of 9 remaining bottles of Piper Deluxe Blender Scotch Whiskey. No doubt, the Ex.P14 FSL report received that it is fit for human consumption however the prosecution has failed to connect the alleged spot belongs to the accused.
26. 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 115 mentioned in the Ex.P4 and the Ex.P1 (seizure Mahazar does not depict the seal particulars). However, the seal was not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW1 (raiding authority) and PW6 IO had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent witness. 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 PW3 raiding authority/PW6 IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case property. In 25 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 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 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 26 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the accused..."....
27. It is nowhere the case of prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to her superior officer. Even the IO/PW3 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.P1A doubt raises about the authenticity of sealing of MOs when the PW3 failed to handover the specimen seal to his superior officer immediately after the alleged seizure.
28. In the present case, on perusal of the entire evidence, except the evidence of police witnesses namely PW1 to PW4, 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.
27 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023At 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.
29. 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, 34, 38(A) 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.28 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
(iv) MO1 to MO4 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 18th day of September, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Sandeep/pancha witness PW2: Sri Shabish, pancha witness PW3: Sri Somashekar.M.R /Excise Sub Inspector PW4: Sri Manjunatha /pancha witness PW5: Sri Rangappa.G/official pancha witness PW6: Sri Ashok Savalagi/IO Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Seizure cum spot Mahazar /PW1 Ex.P2 : Notice to CW2/PW1 29 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023 Ex.P3 : Reasons assigned for not obtaining search warrant/PW1 Ex.P4 : Sample seal /PW1 Ex.P5 : Seized list of articles /PW1 Ex.P6 : Statement of PW1/PW1 Ex.P7 : Notice to CW3/PW2 Ex.P8 : Statement of PW2/PW2 Ex.P9 : Complaint/PW3 Ex.P10 : FIR/PW3 Ex.P11 : Notice given to PW4 Ex.P12 : Letter dtd 21-11-2022 addressed to Laboratory/PW4 Ex.P13 : Letter dtd: 23-12-2022 addressed to BBMP /PW6 Ex.P14 : Report of Chemical Analysis/ Letter dtd: 5-1-2023 addressed from BBMP to Excise Inspector Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1- 4 : Sample bottles Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.30 KABC030096632023 CC 6020/2023
18-09-2025 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, 34, 38(A) 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 to MO4 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B'luru City 31