JUDGMENT : 1. Accused 1 to 5 in Sessions Case 141/2005 have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.9.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-III, Hassan. The appellants have been convicted in relation to offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine, of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo further sentence for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:- Accused No. 1 to 3 belong to Halli Mysore Village. Accused No. 1 to 2 were running a bakery in the said village. Accused No. 3 being the elder brother of accused No. 1 used to look after the bakery business. Accused No. 5 was looking after Asha Bar at Holenarsipura. Accused No. 4 is an employee in the said Asha Bar. On 3.6.2005 one Puttaraju of Hindalhalli arranged a feast in his house. Lakshmana, Chandregowda, Dinesha and Devraju were engaged by Puttaraju for cooking the food. After cooking the food, Lakshman, Devaraju and Chandregowda demanded for supplying liquor to them. One Bojanna-PW-1 sent PW-7 Ramegowda to Halli Mysore for buying 5 bottles of liquor from the bakery of accused 1 to 3. Lakshmana, Devaraju, Chandregowda drank that liquor. Afterwards Lakshmana fell sick seriously and Devaraju and Chandregowda also suffered some health problems. Lakshmana was given first aid in his house and thereafter taken to Keralapaura Government Hospital. He did not respond to the treatment given there. Therefore, he was taken to Mangala Nursing Home, Hassan. He did not respond to the treatment given there also and at last died on 5.6.2005. It appears a complaint was made to the police. Police registered a case under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act. After the police received the report of the death of Lakshmana, they included the provisions of Sections 284, 304 and 302 IPC. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence of 14 witnesses PWs 1 to 14 and 40 documents marked as Exs. P1 to P40 and also 39 material objects MOs 1 to 39 came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case only in respect of the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and sentenced them as stated above. P1 to P40 and also 39 material objects MOs 1 to 39 came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case only in respect of the offence under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act and sentenced them as stated above. The accused were acquitted of the offence under Sections 302, 307, 272, 273 read with Section 34 IPC and also Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act. 4. Challenging this judgment, all the accused approached this court by filing Criminal Appeal 2227/2006. This court by its judgment dated 30.10.2013 accepted the appeal in part and conviction of the accused 2 and 3 was set aside for the offence under Section 34 of the Excise Act; however, the conviction of accused 1, 4 and 5 for the said offence was confirmed. Accused 1, 4 and 5 preferred a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 763/2014 before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court granted leave and remanded the matter to this court for decision once again. When the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court, it appears that it was brought to its notice that the excise officers had also registered complaint in regard to the same incident and charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate for the offence under Section 34 of the Excise Act. The Magistrate acquitted accused No. 5. This matter was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court which opined that the acquittal of petitioner No. 5 should have been brought to the notice of the High Court and for this reason the matter was remanded for decision once again. Therefore, this appeal is once again considered. 5. I have heard the arguments of the appellants’ counsel and the HCGP. 6. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that except PWs 13 and 14 all other witnesses turned hostile. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW-14 should not have been believed by the Sessions Court. Ex.P3 is the mahazar drawn by PW-14. This mahazar should not have believed by the Sessions Court when the independent witnesses turned hostile. It is his further argument that PW-14 was the constable of Holenarasipura Police Station. Ex.P14 is another seizure mahazar drawn at Asha Bar in between 6.30 PM. He seized some liquor bottles. Even this mahazar is not proved by independent witness. Basing conviction purely on mahazars is illegal. It is his further argument that PW-14 was the constable of Holenarasipura Police Station. Ex.P14 is another seizure mahazar drawn at Asha Bar in between 6.30 PM. He seized some liquor bottles. Even this mahazar is not proved by independent witness. Basing conviction purely on mahazars is illegal. The Sessions Judge should not have ventured to hold the accused guilty of the offence in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses. These two mahazars do not establish that the accused were in possession of the liquor. He further argues that the excise officers also registered a case against accused No. 5 and one Raj Mohan, examined as PW-11 in this case. They were acquitted. When an accused was acquitted in a case registered by excise officers, they should not have been held guilty in a case registered by the police. Thus, there has taken place illegality. It is his argument that looked from any angle the prosecution has failed to establish its case. His last point of argument is that when the police seized the liquor bottles they did not obtain search warrant from the Magistrate as required under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. The investigation officer also did not record reasons for not being able to obtain search warrant before he proceeded to the spot for seizing the liquor bottles. Therefore, the entire search of liquor bottles is bad in law and the entire recovery gets vitiated. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Nagesh vs State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No. 772/2009. Therefore, he argues that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the conviction of all the five accused set aside. 7. The learned HCGP argues that the judgment of the Sessions Court does not suffer from infirmities. If the witnesses turned hostile, it is not a rule that the accused must be acquitted. If the trial Judge was convinced of the evidence given by the police officers because of its trust worthiness, there is nothing wrong in convicting the accused. He further argues that the seizure of the liquor bottles at the bakery and also at Asha Bar have to be believed notwithstanding the hostility of the independent mahazar witnesses. The liquor bottles at Asha Bar were seized on the basis of the voluntary statement given by one of the accused. He further argues that the seizure of the liquor bottles at the bakery and also at Asha Bar have to be believed notwithstanding the hostility of the independent mahazar witnesses. The liquor bottles at Asha Bar were seized on the basis of the voluntary statement given by one of the accused. With regard to Section 54 of the Excise Act it is his argument that obtaining of search warrant was not at all necessary. Even non-recording of reasons does not vitiate the entire proceedings. He refers to Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, it is his argument that the judgment of the Sessions Court is in all respects proper and there is no need to interfere with it. He argues for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have considered the points urged by the learned counsel. Since PW-1 to PW-12 have turned hostile and that nothing worthy is elicited from them when they were subjected to cross examination by the Public Prosecutor, the testimonies of PW-13 and PW-14 need to be evaluated. There is no rule as such that no conviction can be based on the testimonies of Police Officers. The evidence of PW-14 is considered first as it was he who registered FIR and conducted the first panchanama as per E.P3 on 05.06.2005. According to this witness, he seized liquor filled bottles at that time. He arrested accused 1 to 3. He has stated that the accused gave voluntary statement. On 06.06.2005, the complainant came to police station and produced 3 liquor bottles before PW-14. Most of the questions put to him are in the form of suggestions which have been denied by him; but very importantly it is elicited from PW-14 that before proceeding to bakery on 05.06.2005, he did not apply to Magistrate for issuing search warrant and he too did not record reasons for not being able to obtain search warrant. 9. PW-13 was the CPI who conducted further investigation. His oral testimony shows that on 06.06.2005, accused 4 and accused No. 5 gave voluntary statements before him. Then he secured independent witnesses and also officers from Excise Department, and then went to Asha Bar and Restaurant along with accused No. 5 Balaraju. He seized liquor bottles produced before him by accused No. 5 and drew up a panchanama as per Ex.P.14. Then he secured independent witnesses and also officers from Excise Department, and then went to Asha Bar and Restaurant along with accused No. 5 Balaraju. He seized liquor bottles produced before him by accused No. 5 and drew up a panchanama as per Ex.P.14. He also seized some more liquor bottles from the house of one H.N. Murthy, the father of accused No. 5 by writing a panchanama as per Ex.P15; His further deposition is that the accused 4 and 5 took him to the house of one Rajanna and seized the labels by drawing panchanama as per Ex.P.16. His further evidence shows all the steps taken by him for completing investigation. 10. In regard to four panchanamas Ex.P3, Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16, it is the vehement argument of the appellants’ counsel that the material objects seized under these panchanamas were not authorized by search warrant issued by the Magistrate; nor that the police officer recorded reasons for not obtaining search warrant and hence the seizure of liquor bottles and labels was vitiated. As regards this argument, it has to be stated that in regard to seizure as per Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16, search warrant was not necessary. If any material object or an article is seized on the basis of voluntary statement, such a seizure does not require search warrant as it is the accused who makes a disclosure and aids the investigation officer to seize the incriminating articles. Search warrant is necessary in a circumstance where after registration of FIR or receipt of credible information, the investigation officer decides to take immediate action, even before arrest of accused to collect the evidence. Here in this case the seizure of material objects, as per Ex.P3 was soon after registration, but before arrest of accused. Hence search warrant was necessary; or PW-14 should have recorded reasons as to why he could not apply to Magistrate for issuance of search warrant. His one answer in the cross-examination shows that he did not resort to the procedures found in Sections 53 and 54 of Karnataka Excise Act. In the case of Nagesh Vs. Hence search warrant was necessary; or PW-14 should have recorded reasons as to why he could not apply to Magistrate for issuance of search warrant. His one answer in the cross-examination shows that he did not resort to the procedures found in Sections 53 and 54 of Karnataka Excise Act. In the case of Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No. 772/2009 with reference to Sections 53 and 54 of Karnataka Excise Act, while distinguishing a Division Bench Judgment of this court in Somanath Kerebail vs. The State of Karnataka, ILR 2004 KAR 527, has held as below: “9.…..But in the case on hand, we are concerned with search of the house on credible information. In that case, it cannot be said that no warrant is required to make a search nor it is necessary to record reasons as to why search warrant could not be obtained as required under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. It cannot be said that the delay in obtaining search warrant would have given scope for the accused to transport the liquor from the house or to escape the accused. Therefore, the Division Bench decision of this court relied upon by the Government Pleader can not be made applicable to the case on hand. The Search of moving vehicle, vessel cannot be equated to search of a house. The obtaining of search warrant or recording of reasons in case of search or vehicle vessel is impracticable. As such, it should be treated as procedural irregularity as held by the Division Bench but not in the case of search of house…” 11. In the instant case, the first seizure was at bakery. Therefore the ratio in Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka is very much applicable. 12. With respect to seizure under Ex.P14 to P16, the above rule cannot be made applicable. Though in the voluntary statement of accused No. 5, portion relating to disclosure of incriminating evidence is not marked, the seizure was made at the instance of accused and it cannot be discarded. However with regard to all seizures, it has to be stated that although PW-13 and PW-14 have not been discredited in the cross examination, their evidence needs further scrutiny to find out the possibilities of seizure made by them. According to prosecution, three persons who drank liquor fell ill on 03.06.2005. This incident took place in a village. However with regard to all seizures, it has to be stated that although PW-13 and PW-14 have not been discredited in the cross examination, their evidence needs further scrutiny to find out the possibilities of seizure made by them. According to prosecution, three persons who drank liquor fell ill on 03.06.2005. This incident took place in a village. It is quite possible to say that once a person falls sick after consuming liquor in a feast, the news spreads rapidly; it has a cascading effect, but not so in big cities. Therefore it is highly doubtful that soon after those three fell sick, the accused would have still kept the liquor bottles. It is human tendency to escape from clutches of legal action, and looked from this angle, the seizure of material objects MO1 to MO25 and MO35 and MO36 under Ex.P3, Ex.P14 to Ex.P16 gives rise to doubt the evidence of PW-13 and PW-14. 13. The next point to be mentioned is when this court, while deciding Criminal Appeal 2227/2006, acquitted accused 2 and 3, the State did not challenge their acquittal by preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecution case shows that all the accused stand on the same footing. Consequent to order of remand made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as this appeal virtually survives in respect of accused 1, 4 and 5, they are to be placed in the position of A2 and A3 or otherwise it results in failure of justice. 14. Another important aspect is acquittal of accused No. 5 by the Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the Excise Officers in relation to same incident. The acquittal judgment passed by Magistrate was not challenged by the State. In fact holding a parallel trial in respect of very same incident in another court itself was bad. Therefore, all the accused deserve the same benefit. This discussion takes to pass the following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment dated 23.9.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court- III, Hassan in Sessions Case 141/2005 is set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act.