Bangalore District Court
Manjunatha M Psi vs Kumar R on 14 August, 2024
KABC030538962021
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 14th Day of August, 2024
C.C. No.19204/2021
The State by Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
... Complainant
(Represented by Sri. Vishwanath Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri. Kumar. R.
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri. Rangaswamaiah,
R/at No.85, Ravi Name,
Behind Railway Quarters,
Nayandahalli,
Bengaluru-560 039.
KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021
2. Sri. Shivaraj
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sri. Javaregowda,
R/at No.2, 12th Cross,
Nagarabhavi Main road,
Bengaluru-560 072 ... Accused
(Represented By Sri S. Srinivasa Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 24-04-2021
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri Manjunatha.M. PSI
3. Offences complained of Under Section 32, 34 of
Karnataka Excise Act &
Section 188 of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
not found guilty
6. Date of order 14-08-2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Chandra Layout Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 32, 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of IPC 2 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021
2. Prosecution Case: The accused No. 2 being a cashier of Amrita Wines Store handed over the 55 Haywards Tetra packets each measuring 90 ml of liquor belonging to his Store to Shreya Hotel, adjacent to his Wines Store, with an intention to sell the same to his customers for higher price. In order to prevent the spread of Covid 19, the Government of Karnataka has passed an order of curfew for closure of business in the State for from Friday night from 9 pm till the Monday Morning at 6 am. On 24-04-2021 at 10 am, the accused No.1, who is a worker in the said hotel Shreya, was in possession of the 55 liquor Haywards tetra packets in the Hotel and sold to the public at a higher price. On the receipt of credible information, CW1 along with staff and panchas proceeded to the spot, conducted seizure formalities and returned to station along with accused No.1 and 2 and seized properties.
3. First Information Report: Upon the receipt of credible information, CW1 / PW1 - Sri. Manjunath- Police Sub-Inspector, of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bangalore a search has been conducted in the hotel Shreya, seized the liquor in the presence of panchas by drawing the spot cum seizure mahazar as per Ex. P.1. On the basis of spot cum seizure panchanama and requisition of CW1 as per Ex. P. 2, CW7/PW5 registered the complaint against the accused in Crime No. 93/2021 for the 3 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 offences punishable U/Sec. 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the FIR as per Ex. P. 6 prepared, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: During the course of investigation, CW7/PW5 handed over the case papers to the CW8/PW2, who, in turn, on the receipt of case papers, recorded the statements of requisite witnesses and secured the ownership particulars of hotel and sent the sample liquors for chemical examination to FSL, Bangalore and secured the FSL Report as per Ex. P. 5 on 11/06/2021. After completion of investigation, CW8/PW2 submitted the charge sheet for the offenses punishable U/Sec.32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of Indian Penal Code against the accused No. 1 and 2.
5. Charge: On receipt of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of offences alleged against the accused No. 1 and 2. Copies of prosecution paper as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused. After hearing learned APP and counsel for accused No. 1 and 2, charge for the offences punishable the offenses punishable U/Sec.32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/20216. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 8 witnesses, examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents and closed their side. However the examination of CW2 and CW4 were given up by the order dated 08/08/2023. The prosecution failed to secure the presence of CW5 despite proclaimation and hence the examination of CW5 were given up by the order dated 04/03/2024.
7. Accused statement as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No. 1 and 2 was examined as per section 313 statement of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
8. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
9. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 24-04-2021 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused 5 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 No.1 and 2 were in illegal possession of Haywards 55 tetra packets of liquor at Shreya Hotel situated at Nayandanahalli in order to make unlawful gains, within limits of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 32 of Karnataka Excise Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place, the accused No.1 was in illegal possession liquor by unlawfully collecting the liquors from the accused No. 2 thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable Section 34 of Karnataka Excise Act?
3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on above said date, time and place accused No.1 violated the order passed by the Government of Karnataka during pandemic of covid-19 6 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable U/sec.188 of IPC?
4. What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1-3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per final order REASONS
11. Point No.1 & 2: These points are taken up together for the purpose of common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts as they form the same part of transaction. In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 9 of this judgment, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, which are as follows i. CW1/PW1 Sri Manjunatha, the then PSI of Chandra layout PS, has deposed that he on the receipt of credible information that accused persons were selling the liquors in Shreya Hotel to the customers for higher price who then, he along with CW2, panchas CW3 and CW4 went to the spot and conducted mahazar, seized the properties and amount of Rs.950/- and reported to CW7 as Ex.P2. He identified his signature on spot cum seizure mahazar and the 7 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 same is marked as Ex. P. 1 and his signature is marked as Ex. P. 1A. He identified his signature on requisition and the same is marked as Ex. P. 2 and his signature is marked as Ex. P. 2A. He identified MO1 before this court.
ii. CW8/PW2, Sri Brijesh Mathew, the then PI of Chandra Layout PS has deposed in his evidence that, on the receipt of case papers from CW7, he recorded the statement of accused and collected the documents in respect of hotel (alleged spot) and submitted final report to court.
iii. CW6/PW3, Smt. Savitha, Assistant Director, FSL, Madiwala deposed that she had tested the MO1 and had given chemical analysis report. She identified MO1. She identified her signature on FSL report and the same is marked as Ex. P. 5 and her signature is marked as Ex. P. 5A.
iv. CW3/PW4 Sri Shivaprasad, pancha witness identified his signature on Ex.P1 and the same is marked as Ex. P. 1b deposed that in the month of April, 2021 the police have conducted the mahazar near Amrutha Bar at 10.30/10.45 a.m. to 11.45 p.m. and seized 40 tetra packets from the said bar.
v. CW7/PW5, Sri Somashekharaiah, the then ASI of Chandra layout PS, deposed about registration of the case and submitted FIR to court and sent the seized properties to FSL for chemical examination.
8 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/202112. It is relevant to mention Section 32 of The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (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, [be punished for each offence with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.] [Provided that the punishment,-(i)for the first offence shall be not less than [one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of not less than 9 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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] Section 34 of K E Act reads as under Penalty for illegal possession Whoever, without lawful authority has in his possession any quantity of any intoxicant knowing the same to have been unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, cultivated or collected, or knowing the prescribed duty not to have been paid thereon, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [1] [four years and with fine 10 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.]] [2] [Provided that the punishment,-
(i) for the first offence shall be not less than [3] [one year imprisonment and fine of rupees ten thousand]; and
(ii) for the second and subsequent offences shall be not less than imprisonment for [4] [two years and fine of not less than rupees twenty thousand], for each such offence:
Provided further that the fine inflicted, shall not be less than four times the amount of duty leviable on such intoxicant.] Thus, it appears Ex.P1 is a spot cum seizure mahazar under which liquor tetra packets have been seized by the CW1/PW1 Police Inspector stating that the accused was selling liquors 55 aywards whiskey tetra packets each measuring 90 ML in his hotel Shreya without any license for sale 24/04/2021 at 10.00 am however FIR was registered on 24/04/2021 11 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 at 12 p and there is no single recitation about the registration of FIR in the Ex. P. 1. The search and seizure conducted by PW1 without registration of FIR in respect of cognizable offence is unsustainable in law.
13. In this regard, 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 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, 12 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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 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;13 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021
(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 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 14 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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 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 15 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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 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.
16 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/202114. The Ex.P1 being a panchanama cannot be termed as a complaint though . FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama. It appears from the record, i.e. Ex.P1 spot cum seizure mahazar, on 24-04-2021 seizure was taken place at 10.50 a.m. till 11.40 a.m., but it appears from Ex.P2 i.e. complaint lodged by PW1 on 24-04-2021 at 12.05 p.m i.e., after seizure mahazar before SHO to register the complaint which is unsustainable 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.
15. It appears from the entire records that accused No.1 was in possession of liquor in the hotel. As per Ex.P1 and 2, it appears that the PW1 has entered into the hotel for raid/search. In this regard, it is relevant to mentioned the provision of Section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act which reads as under:
54. Power to search without warrant.
- Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offence under section 32, section 33, section 34, section 36 or 17 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief,-
a) xxxxx
b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.
Thus the section 54 of K.E. Act mandates that, before entering into any premises, vessel or place, raiding officer has to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate to conduct the raid or he has to record the reason as to why he has not taken prior permission. It appears from the record that the I.O. has neither taken prior permission before the raid nor assign any reason for having not obtained the prior permission. Hence such seizure by PW1 without compliance of section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act 1965 becomes illegal and invalid and the said principle is appreciated in the case of NAGARAJ PATAGAR VERSUS STATE reported in LAWS(KAR) 2014 2 514.
18 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/202116. It appears from the Ex. P. 1 that the boundaries of alleged spot mentioned as follows "ಚೆಕ್ಕುಬಂಧಿಃ ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ ಅಮೃತ್ ವೈನ್ಸ್ ಸ್ಟೋರ್, ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ ಖಾಲಿ ಜಾಗ ಇರುತ್ತೆ, ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ನಾಯಂಕಹಳ್ಳಿ ರೈಲ್ವೇ ಗೇಟ್ ರಸ್ತೆ, ಪೂರ್ವ ಮತ್ತು ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾದು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೆ, ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ ರೈಲ್ವೇ ಗೇಟ್ ಹಾದು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೆ, ಈ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆಯನ್ನು ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 10-50 ಗಂಟೆಯಿಂದ ಬೆಳಿಗ್ಗೆ 11.40 ಗಂಟೆ ನಡುವೆ ಹೆಚ್.ಸಿ. 5988 ನಾಗರಾಜ್.ಎನ್. ರವರ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಟೈಪ್ ಮಾಡಿಸಲಾಯಿತು".
Thus, it emerges from the Ex.P1 (Spot cum seizure mahazar) on the eastern side of the hotel i.e. building No.48/1, Shreeya Tandoori Adda, Nayandanahalli Railway Gate within the limits of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, was bounded on property belongs to Amrutha Wines. However, the PW5 has not examined the said owner of Amrutha Wine Stores for having supplied the liquor tetra packets to the accused No.1 for the purpose of sale.
17. Apart from which, it appears from Ex.P1, Sri P. Shivaprasad s/o late Sri Puttaraju, R/at No.56, Revanna Layout, Nayandanahalli and Sri Irfan Baig s/o Rehman Baig, R/at Amrtuhtanagara, Chandra Layout, Bengaluru, was pancha witnesses to the Spot cum seizure mahazar. In this regard the learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2 has cross examined 19 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 PW1 wherein PW1 admitted in the cross examination as follows:
"ಟೆಟ್ರಾಪ್ಯಾಕ್ಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆಯಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕದವರನ್ನು ಪಂಚರನ್ನಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಲು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ".
Such being the case, PW1 himself has admitted that, though there were neighbours around the alleged spot, but the PW1 did not make any attempt to secure the local inhabitants around the alleged spot to be a witness to the Ex.P1.
18. 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 20 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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 and respectable inhabitants of locality in which the place to be searched is situated. The alleged spot is surrounded on the main road wherein service station center and petty shops and movements of people are on the spot. At the time of raid, there were petty shops and service station around the alleged spot but the PW1 (IO) has not made any attempt to obtain their statement. Such being the case, this court cannot give any credence to the Ex. P. 1 (seizure cum spot mahazar). More so, 21 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 they were public as per evidence of PW1 , he could have made attempts to secure the witnesses but no such attempts were made out. Only if the witness around spot is not willing to be a witness, then, the police officer could have taken the witnesses as near as possible witnesses. If the accused was in possession of 4.50 liters liquors which is beyond the permissible limit of 2.6 liter without license so to attract the Section 32 of KE Act as per Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967.
19. It appears from the entire prosecution that the particulars of the MO1 was not mentioned in the Ex.P1 to connect the seizure alleged to have been given by Amrutha Wine Stores to the accused no.1's hotel.
20. PW5 IO has not taken any steps to secure the particulars of liquor tetra packets for having supplied to the hotel Shreyas belongs to the licence holder i.e., Amrutha Wines Stores.
21. Apart from, the Investigating Officer/PW5 has not furnished the source of MO1 that it was supplied to Amrutha Wine Stores.
22. Apart from it, the Investigating Officer has produced the copy of rent agreement dated 26th July 22 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 2021, but in the instant case, the alleged date of offense is 24-04-2021. No material was produced by the PW5 that on date of incident i.e., 24-04-2021 whether the said accused No.1 and 2 was a tenant of said building No.48/1, Shreeya Tandoori Adda, Nayandanahalli Railway Gate within the limits of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru to corroborate that the accused No.1 was a tenant in respect of shop No.7 situated at near railway gate Nayandahalli main Road, Mysore road, Bengaluru - 560 039 or the owner of the accused No. 1 was paying the rents to the owner of building Sri Srinivasa S/o Late Rangappa on 24/04/2021 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. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offences alleged against above accused No. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this court answer the above point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
23. Point No.3: It appears as on 20-04-2021, issue of Covid-19, there was restriction for opening of shop, In this regard the Investigating Officer/Pw5 has produced the copy of order passed by the Government of Karnataka. On 20-04-2021, wherein there was a curfew of week end which reads as under
"Only neighbourhood shops dealing with food, groceries, fruits and vegetables, 23 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 dairy and milk booths, meat and fish allowed to function from 6 am to 10 am. Home delivery of essential items shall be encouraged to minimize movement of individuals outside their homes. Operations shall be subject to adhering to COVID-19 appropriate behavior".
Though the PW1 and 3 supported Ex.P1, however, the said seizure itself is against the provision of Section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act and no materials has been produced to substantiate the accused No.1 and 2 was in possession of liquor in the hotel/shop and they were running the hotel. No photographs were produced that the accused No. 1 was running the hotel on 24/04/2021 at 10 am and the same was opened during the Pandamic period of covid 19. So it is safe to hold that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt thereby this court answers the above point No.3 in the negative.
24. Point No.4:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1 to 3, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.24 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offenses punishable under Sec.32, 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 and 2 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 and MO2 is ordered to be confiscated to Government, after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of August, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE 25 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Manjunatha PW2 : Brijesh Mathew PW3 : Savitha PW4 : Shivaprasad PW5 : Somashekaraiah
Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P2 : Report Ex.P3 : Licence Ex.P4 : ನೌಕರನಾಮ Ex.P5 : Test Report Ex.P6 : First Information Report
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Samples MO2 : Rs.950/-
Witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City. 14-08-2024 26 KABC030538962021 CC 19204/2021 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 offenses punishable under Sec.32, 34 of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 188 of IPC.
(ii) Accused No.1 and 2 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 destroyed20 and MO2 is ordered to be confiscated to Government, after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
27