ORDER : The State is in Revision challenging the judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court – II at Koppal, in Crl. A. No.31/2010 wherein the learned Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the Authorised Officer i.e., Excise Superintendent, Koppal, in file No.EX/DTCR/33/2007-08 confiscating the seized Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA-29/P-0969. 2. I have heard the learned H.C.G.P. appearing for the petitioner – State. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.09.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. on a credible information, the police attached to Town Police Station Gangavathi intercepted a Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-29/P-0969 near Kanakagiri road and found that the inmates of the said vehicle were in illegal possession of 240 Raja Whisky bottles of 180ml each and 288 bottles of United Fine Whisky bottles of 180ml each. Since the said liquor bottles were being carried in the said vehicle without any valid license or permit, the inmates of the vehicle were arrested and the vehicle along with the contraband articles were seized under a panchanama in the presence of the panch witnesses. The seized vehicle was released to the interim custody of the respondent/RC owner of the vehicle. 4. Before the Authorised Officer the confiscation proceedings were initiated. Four witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case and two documents were marked. The vehicle in question came to be confiscated by the Authorised Officer i.e., the Excise Superintendent, Koppal by an order dated 27.05.2010 in File No.EX/DTCR/33/2007-08. 5. The respondent filed an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 43-E of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’). The learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the interim custody of the vehicle which was given to the respondent was made absolute. 6. The learned H.C.G.P. vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge has mis-directed himself in observing that the provisions of search contemplated under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act is not complied and further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that the contravention of provision of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act would result in invalidating the seizure proceedings. 7. 7. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision reported in 2004 (2) KCCR SN 163 (DB) in the case of Sri Somanath Kerebail v. The State of Karnataka and a decision reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 1147 in the case of State of Karnataka and Another v. M. Haneef and Another. 8. Though the respondent was served, however, he has remained absent. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the vehicle in question i.e., Bolero bearing Reg. No.KA-29/P-0969 was found carrying liquor bottles and the inmates of the said vehicle were not possessing any valid licence or permit to carry the said liquor. To prove the seizure of contraband articles and the vehicle in question, the prosecution got examined four witnesses and got marked two documents. It is relevant to see that both PWs.1 and 2, who are the material witnesses, namely, the panch witnesses, have turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-3 is the CPI and PW-4 is one Head Constable who are part of the raiding party. Though it is stated by them that some persons were transporting the liquor bottles in the vehicles and stated that the accused persons were arrested and articles were seized and mahazar was drawn, however, seizure of the vehicle and carrying the liquor bottles is not fully established. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the procedure in obtaining the search warrant or preparing the search memo was not followed and thereby held that the seizure was without jurisdiction. It was observed after relying on a decision of this Court in the case of L. Srinivas v. The Authorised Officer and Superintendent of Excise reported in ILR 1999 Karnataka 2872 that, if, the procedure is not followed, then the entire proceedings become invalid. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that even in the present case neither prior permission of the Magistrate was taken by the police officer nor the search memo was prepared before making the search. Hence, it is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. 11. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that even in the present case neither prior permission of the Magistrate was taken by the police officer nor the search memo was prepared before making the search. Hence, it is in contravention of the provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. 11. In the decision relied upon by the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court in the case of Somanath (supra) has held that, failure to record reasons must not affect the validity of the search unless the accused demonstrates that he has, by reasons of any such violation, suffered any prejudice. Failure to record reasons in cases where the searches are conducted in vehicles, vessels, rafts or animals should be treated only to be a procedural irregularity. 12. However, in the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has held, considering the fact that the seizure itself is not established and the material witnesses-PWs.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution, that, before the Authorized Officer there was no sufficient evidence to satisfy himself that an offence under this Act has been committed. 13. The decision relied upon by the learned High Court Government Pleader in the case of State of Karnataka and Another (supra), this Court has held that confiscation proceedings before the Authorized Officer and the Criminal case initiated against the accused are distinct and therefore acquittal in the associated criminal cases do not have a bearing on the confiscation proceedings. In the present case, though the accused were acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against them, however, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that, the contention that the accused have been acquitted in criminal case and as such there is no proof in respect of transportation of the liquor bottles, is not helpful. Hence, the acquittal of accused in the criminal case has not been made a ground by the learned Sessions Judge for allowing the appeal. 14. Considering the material on record, I find no illegality in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.