Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This is a State’s appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38-A and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 3. Heard the learned HCGP Sri Raja Subramanya Bhat. 4. The Counsel for the respondent-accused is absent. 5. The perusal of the records shows that the Inspector of Excise, Shimoga, initiated investigation against the accused and conducted a raid at 11.45 a.m. on 25-9-1998 and found the respondent-accused was in possession of 8.640 liters of non-tax paid Indian liquor. It was stored in front of his house situate at Tamillians Street, Mattur Village, Shimoga Taluk. On being questioned, the accused failed to produce any documents regarding payment of tax and excise over the quantity of liquor in his possession. Consequently, it was seized. 6. On culmination of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and accused was put to trial. The Inspector of Excise concerned did not produce any witness during the trial to support the charge raised against the respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38-A and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act. The learned Trial Judge has recorded in clear terms in his impugned order that despite grant of opportunity, the prosecution has failed to produce any witnesses consequent to which no incriminating material was brought on record. Actually it is clear default in producing the witnesses during the trial. The learned Trial Judge had no option but to close the evidence. Since there was no evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution to support the charge, the learned Trial Judge acquitted them. I find no infirmity in the said order. The Trial Court’s judgment is affirmed. The Excise Department may take notice of such lapse and ensure that the concerned officers conduct prosecution in right earnest and it shall not be just for statistical purposes as in the instant case. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.