Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 696 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Mahadeva

2009-09-01

ARALI NAGARAJ

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard both the sides on Misc. Cri. No. 2425 of 2009, the petition filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 171 days caused in filing the present appeal. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit sworn to in support thereof, the said application is allowed and the said delay is condoned. 2. Though this matter is listed today for hearing on application for condonation of delay, it is taken for final disposal by consent of the learned High Court Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel for respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 3. The respondent – accused was prosecuted before the Trial Court by the appellant-complainant for the offences under Section 11, 14 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. It is the case of prosecution that on 11-5-2005 at about 7.00 p.m. when the police conducted search of the shop premises of the accused. 83 litres of illicit liquor were found possessed by him. Therefore, the respondent-accused came to be charge-sheeted for the said offences. On appreciation of evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the documents at Exs. P. 1 to P.3, the Trial Court acquitted the accused by its impugned judgment and order. The correctness of the same has been challenged in this appeal. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that despite sufficient opportunities, none of the official witnesses cited in the charge-sheet for the prosecution stepped into the witness-box to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to show that despite request made by the learned. Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Trial Court refused to give reasonable opportunity to the prosecution for getting the witnesses secured for deposing on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the Trial Court, having left with no alternative, acquitted the accused on the ground that P.Ws. 1 and 2, the independent panch witnesses to the seizure of illicit liquor form the shop of accused did not support the case of the prosecution. In view of these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 5. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 1 and 2, the independent panch witnesses to the seizure of illicit liquor form the shop of accused did not support the case of the prosecution. In view of these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 5. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. The concerned department shall be at liberty to take steps against the erring officers, who did not appear before the Trial Court for giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution despite availing sufficient opportunity.