Karnataka High Court
Sri K R Putte Gowda vs State By Excise Department on 24 April, 2026
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:22838
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1359 OF 2018
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI K R PUTTE GOWDA
S/O LATE RAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O K TALAGURU VILLAGE
BALUR HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 132.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINATH.B.V FOR SRI.NANJUNDA GOWDA M R,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE BY EXCISE DEPARTMENT
MUDIGERE
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MALATESH
KC BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
COURT OF PLEADER)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE DATED
03.02.2018, PASSED IN C.C.NO.426/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDIGERE BY
CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 32(1)(a)(f), 32(1) AND 38(a) OF K.E. ACT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:22838
CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND SECTION 273 OF IPC AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
PASSED ON 23.10.2018 IN CRL.A.NO.34/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHIKKAMAGALURU AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE
AFORESAID OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Srinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.426/2017, dated 03.02.2018, on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudigere, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(a)(f), 32(1) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of Indian Penal Code, confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2018 is the Revision petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Upon the credible information received by the head of the raid party, there was a raid and illicit liquor was seized and after retaining the sample, remaining quantity of the illicit -3- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR liquor were destroyed and a panchanama was drafted. After thorough investigation charge sheet came to be filed.
4. Presence of the accused was secured before the Trial Magistrate and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty therefore trial was held.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to
3. Panchas have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
Prosecution placed on record sixteen documents as Exs.P.1 to P.16 and sample liquor bottles as MOs.1 and 2.
6. Thereafter, heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused inter alia holding in paragraphs 20 to 24 as under:
"20. Even the counsel for accused has not elicited contrary to the contents of the mahazar which is drawn by PW.1 in respect of the seizure of illicit liquor and jaggery wash. By examining the PW.1 and 2 the prosecution has proved the contents of the mahazar. The counsel for accused has disputed the drawing of sample that it does not contain 750 ml of the sample from illicit liquor and jaggery wash. Nothing contrary is elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and 2 that the sample -4- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR bottle does not contain 750 ml of illicit liquor and jaggery wash. The documents produced by the prosecution that are the mahazar search report and the seizure report clearly shows that PW.1 and 2 have drawn the sample of 750 ml each of illicit liquor and jaggery wash for the chemical examination.
21. PW.2 has stated about the taking of sample to the chemical examination and nothing contrary is elicited from the mouth that he has not taken the said samples for the purpose of chemical examination. Even PW.3 has clearly stated that after obtaining the report from the chemical examiner, PW.2 has produced it before him. Nothing contrary is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses in respect of the report of the chemical examiner and also its contents.
22. The counsel for accused has denied that there is no connection with the seized articles to the accused and a false case is registered against him. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and 2, the counsel for accused has put some suggestions that there may be false implication by the excise officials. He has failed to extract from the mouth of these witnesses that what is the adverse interest to the excise officials to falsely implicate the accused. No animosity is elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to foist a false case against the accused. When the counsel for accused has failed to extract that there is an -5- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR animosity between the excise officials and the accused the question of false implication does not arise.
23. The prosecution has produced the chemical examiner report wherein it discloses that the said sample sent to them for the examination is not safe for the human consumption. The counsel for accused has not disputed the contents of the said report. Hence, the report of the chemical examiner stands proved.
24. From the evidence available on record, the prosecution has proved that on 20.06.2016, accused was manufacturing illicit liquor and on search 750 ml of illicit liquor and 60 liters of jaggery wash were seized along with other articles. The samples were sent to for chemical examination and as per chemical evantner's report Ex.P.13, two samples drawn contained ethyle alcohol and waste and they are not ft for human consumption. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 to 3 is sufficient to prove the possession and in view of proof of possession of illicit liquor and jaggery wash in the custody of accused, presumption under Section 40 of the K.E. Act is available in favour of the prosecution. The said presumption is not rebutted by the accused by taking any specific defence. Therefore, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable U/Secs.32(1) and -6- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR 32(2)(e) of K.E.Act and Section 273 of IPC. Hence I answer points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative."
7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.34/2018.
8. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of the accused and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code and maintained the conviction for the remaining offences inter alia holding in paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:
"20. However, the learned Magistrate has also included the offence under Sec. 273 of IPC. In fact, the offence under Sec.273 of IPC is non cognizable offence and Excise Officials will not file any charge sheet under the provisions of Indian Penal Gode. On perusing trial court record, it is evident that the charge sheet was filed only in respect of offences punishable under Sec. 13(1)(a)
(f).32(1) and 38-A of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the cognizance is also taken in respect of above said offences only. But, some how, the learned Magistrate, for the reasons best known to him has included Sec. 273 of IPC which is not -7- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR permissible. In fact, he has even convicted the accused for the said offence under Sec. 273 of IPC. But in my considered view, said procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is not permissible in law, as no charge sheet is filed and no cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Sec. 273 of IPC. Therefore, that portion of the judgment needs to be set aside.
21. I have perused the judgment and sentence order passed by the learned Magistrate.
The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence on record in detail and also considered the presumption under Sec. 40 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The learned Magistrate after assessing the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and documents evidence and also chemical analysis report has come to right conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case. In fact, the learned Magistrate has given reasons as to why he has imposed sentence and he has imposed minimum punishment prescribed for the said offences and small amount of fine. He has also ordered that all the sentenced shall run concurrently and he has given set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. However, as stated above, in respect of Sec. 273 of IPC, the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself and wrongly included said section for which there is no basis. Hence, I hold that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate needs no -8- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR interference as regards the offences punishable under Sec. 32(1) and 32(2)(e) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and it requires interference only in respect of offence punishable under Sec. 273 of IPC. Accordingly, I answer Points No.1 in the affirmative and Point no.2 partly in the affirmative."
9. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court.
10. Sri Srinath, learned counsel for the Revision petitioner on behalf of Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the head of the raid party has not complied the conditions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Excise Act and places reliance on the following judgments, wherein it has been held as under and sought for allowing revision petition:
(i) K.L. Subhayya vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 711
4. This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary vitiates the conviction. We feel that both Ss. 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous -9- NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR prosecution or harassment. The point was taken before the High Court which appears to have brushed aside this legal lacuna without making any real attempt to anlyse the effect of the provisions of Sections 53 and 54. The High Court observed that these two sections were wholly irrelevant. With due respect, we are unable to approve of such a cryptic approach to a legal question which is of far-reaching consequence. It was, however, suggested that the word 'place' would not include the car, but the definition of the word 'place' under the Act clearly includes vehicles which would include a car. Thus the ground on which the argument of the petitioner has been rejected by the High Court cannot be sustained by us. We are satisfied that there has been a direct non-compliance of the provisions of S. 54 which renders the search completely without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him."
(ii) Veerappa @ Virupakshappa vs. State of Karnataka Crl.RP.No.100172/2025 High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench "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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR 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, 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, [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 videographed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR 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 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;
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR
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 report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub- section, 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.
(iii) Ismail and others vs. The State By Honnalli Police Crl.RP.No.216/2015 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU "53. Power of magistrate to issue a warrant.-If a magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant,-
(a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed, and
(b) for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence."
(iv) Veeresh S/o Shankarayya Ganachari Vs. The State of Karnataka Crl.RP.No.2294/2013 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
17. Before adverting to other facts of the case, it is necessary to refer the provision of Section 53 of the Act in detail which reads thus;
"If a magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence under section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant,-
(a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed, and
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR
(b) for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence."
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgment.
12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. With the limited powers of the revisional jurisdiction, this Court reconsidered the material on record meticulously.
13. On such reconsideration of the material on record, seizure of illicit liquor as per the sample marked at MO1 is not in dispute.
14. Admittedly, accused did not possess any licence to manufacture, preserve and possess the illicit liquor and therefore liquor is termed as illicit liquor.
15. Further, no explanation is forthcoming by the accused as to why he was possessing huge quantity of the liquor as per the panchanama marked at Ex.P.1.
16. Insofar as technical objections raised before this Court for the first time on behalf of the revision petitioner that there is no compliance to Section 53 and 54 of the Excise Act is
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR concerned. Place of incident being outside the house, non obtaining the search warrant did not cause any serious dent to the case of the prosecution.
17. There cannot be any dispute as to the principle of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Subhayya supra relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. But the material facts of the present case are altogether different from the facts that are involved in the aforesaid decisions inasmuch as the place of raid is outside the house. Therefore, the same is not of any avail in setting aside the order of conviction. Accordingly, conviction needs to be maintained.
18. Having said so, the learned Trial Magistrate has granted minimum punishment and there is a sufficient application of mind by the First Appellate Court in setting aside the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 273 of Indian Penal Code, as there was no charge.
19. Further, no further modification of the sentence is called for as minimum sentence has been imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate for the proved offences.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:22838 CRL.RP No. 1359 of 2018 HC-KAR
20. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 63