ORDER : Though this petition is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-State challenging the judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 rendered by the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.7/2010 setting aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mangalore in SDK 312/DTCR/2007-08 dated 23.12.2009. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the accused who is arraigned as respondent No.1 is said to be the R.C. owner of Tata Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.KA-19-B-7029. The Lorry came to be seized by the Addl. Superintendent of Police of Panambur Sub-Division on 4.2.2008 at around 7 A.M. near KIADB Office at Baikampady Industrial Area alleging that 157 cans of 35 liters each totaling to 5,495 liters of rectified spirit was being transported by camouflaging it under a heap of sand without any permit. In this regard Cr.No.10/2008 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15(1), 32, 34, 35, 43(e) of the Karnataka Excise Act. During the course of investigation, the IO also seized the lorry as it was being used for transporting illicit liquor. The accused filed an application for interim release of the Lorry contending that he had no knowledge of connivance whatsoever with regard to the alleged transportation of illicit liquor. As per the order of second respondent dated 11.6.2008, the said Lorry was released on the accused furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.5,90,000/. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were got marked. On appreciation of material available on record, the second respondent – Authorised Officer vide order dated 23.12.2009 in SDK 312 DTCR 2007-08 confiscated the Lorry belonging to the accused to the State. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused herein preferred an appeal under Section 43(E) of the Karnataka Excise Act before the first Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.7/2010. The Court below vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 allowed the appeal and setaside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mangalore. Hence, this petition by the State by urging various grounds. 6. The Court below vide judgment and order dated 17.04.2018 allowed the appeal and setaside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mangalore. Hence, this petition by the State by urging various grounds. 6. Learned HCGP for the State contends that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence available on record. Further, he contends that the Court below has come to the wrong conclusion stating that there is no evidence for seizure of illicit liquor and only on the basis of the statements of official witness and without there being any corroboration from independent witnesses, the search and seizure could not be believed. He further contends that the Court below has taken a liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized and the same would perpetuate the commission of more offences, with respect to illegal liquor which is harmful to the entire society. He contends that the prosecution has clearly established before the Authorised Officer by producing the cogent evidence that the accused was transporting illicit liquor and when he was caught and examined, it was found that there was no permit or licence and the accused could not account for the quantity of the liquor so seized. The prosecution has proved the possession and seizure of illicit liquor but the Court below has erroneously set aside the order of the Authorised Officer and released the vehicle in favour of the respondent no.1/accused. On all these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Court below by allowing this petition. 7. Per contra, Learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused contends that the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court is just and proper and based on appreciation of material evidence available on record. She contends that the first Appellate Court has rightly observed that the ASP Panambur who seized the lorry and liquor in the lorry, without examining the Authorised Officer has passed the order, further this respondent had no knowledge of illicit liquor being carried in his lorry. Even the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of lorry beyond all reasonable doubt. By considering all these aspects, the first Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mangalore confiscating the lorry to the State. Even the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of lorry beyond all reasonable doubt. By considering all these aspects, the first Appellate Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mangalore confiscating the lorry to the State. There is no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the court below. The petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 8. In this context of the contentions as taken by learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.1/accused, it is relevant to state that the order of respondent No.2 – Authorised Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise shows that on 4.2.2008, A.S.P., Panambur Sub Division seized the Tipper Lorry bearing No.KA-19-B-7029 with 157 can spirit in the lorry each containing 35 liters. After investigation of the matter, the IO laid the charge sheet before the Court. Three witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and documents as per Exs.P1 to P4 which are Mahazar, Investigation report of PW.2, FIR and the property form respectively were got marked. PW.2 who conducted the investigation in part has admitted that he has not made any endeavour in recording the statement of second respondent – Authorised Officer. The A.S.P. Panambur who seized the lorry and liquor was not examined and the accused did not lead the evidence in support of his case. Further, the order of the Authorised Officer does not show that the accused had knowledge of carrying the liquor in his lorry. Further the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 also does not show that the accused had the knowledge and connivance for commission of offences under the K.E.Act. No independent witness is cited in the mahazar and the Authorised Officer has relied only on the evidence of official witnesses which is fatal to the case of prosecution as there is no corroboration by the independent witnesses. Further, Ex.P1Mahazar and property forms as per Ex.P4 shows that the seizure of the property is not in accordance to the provisions enumerated under Section 54 of the K.E.Act. Further, PW.3 in his cross-examination has stated that in the mahazar at Ex.P1, the exact details of place of incident has not been mentioned. Hence, there appears clouds of doubts in the alleged seizure of the vehicle. 9. Further, PW.3 in his cross-examination has stated that in the mahazar at Ex.P1, the exact details of place of incident has not been mentioned. Hence, there appears clouds of doubts in the alleged seizure of the vehicle. 9. It is relevant to state here that as observed by the first Appellate Court, respondent No.1 herein is arraigned as accused No.4 in C.C.No.3063/2008 on the file of JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru. In the said case, the trial court vide judgment dated 17.6.2014 has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons including accused No.4/respondent no.1 herein for the offences alleged against them and acquitted them. Further, it has held that the vehicle alleged to have been used in commission offence, where charge of offence itself has not been proved and the accused have been acquitted, it could not be said that vehicle in question was used for the commission of that offence. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 who is arraigned as accused No.4 in C.C.No.3063/2008 has been acquitted by the trial Court, the first appellate Court is justified in setting aside the order of Authorised Officer and the Deputy Commissioner confiscating the lorry in question in favour of the State on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused even to the extent of recovery of lorry beyond all reasonable doubt. I find no illegality or infirmity committed by the first Appellate Court to interfere with the impugned judgment. Nothing is remaining to address the issue in the petition filed by the State. Therefore, petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the State is hereby rejected. Consequently, the order passed by the VI Addl. District and sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru in Crl.A.No.7/2010 dated 17.4.2018 is hereby confirmed.