ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2012 in C.C.No.953/2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur and its confirmation judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.114/2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short ‘Act’). 2. The petitioner is the accused before the Trial Court and appellant before the Appellate Court. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 31.07.2007, at about 8.00 p.m. CW5/PW.3 on receiving the credible information regarding illegal possession of liquor by the accused in his house situated at Hospete Village, she secured panchas and went to the house of the accused along with staff and panchas. On seeing them, one person ran away from the place. The excise officials tried to apprehend him, however, they could not apprehend him. On search, they found two plastic bags behind the house of the accused; on checking the bags, in one bag, there were 50 sachets each containing 100 ml arrack and in another bag, four 300 ml., Kingfisher Premium Beer bottles. They seized the same under the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses, by taking samples for chemical examination and returned to the office along with seized articles. On enquiry, they came to know that the person who ran away from the place is the accused herein. 4. Subsequently, on the basis of the above report, a case was registered and FIR was transmitted to the Court. During the course of investigation, investigating officer sent the sample to FSL for chemical examination. On 19.2.2008, the investigating officer obtained chemical examiner’s report and thereafter, on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 5 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4 On the other hand, the accused has not led any evidence nor marked any documents on his behalf. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 5 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4 On the other hand, the accused has not led any evidence nor marked any documents on his behalf. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 6. Heard Shri P.B. Umesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Ravindra B Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 8. It is further submitted that, the Courts below have erred in arriving at a conclusion that, the petitioner is found guilty of the offence in the absence of any documents to show that, the petitioner is the owner of the said property where the alleged raid said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer. 9. It is further contended that, the Courts below failed to appreciate the seizure mahazar properly. It is his contention that, the witnesses shown as seizure mahazar witnesses are the residents of different villages, the Investigating Officers have not secured the localites as panchas to the said seizure mahazar. It is his further contention that, the registration of FIR is bad in law without information given by the informant in respect of cognizable offence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the errors committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction and prays to allow the petition by setting aside the concurrent findings. 11. It is his further contention that, the registration of FIR is bad in law without information given by the informant in respect of cognizable offence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the errors committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction and prays to allow the petition by setting aside the concurrent findings. 11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) justifying the concurrent findings submits that, the collection of document pertaining to the place where the raid has been conducted may not be necessary as the independent panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. 12. It is further submitted that, even though the panch witnesses are not the residents of the locality where the raid had taken place, the same may be considered as irregularity. There is no strict requirement of the locals to be as panch witnesses. It is his further contention that, the information given by the informant in the form of search and seizure may be construed as information and the said information followed by the First Information Report. Making such submission, learned HCGP justified the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 13. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the judgments of the Courts below, the points which arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 32 of the Act are sustainable? (ii) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below for conviction? 14. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard to the scope and ambit envisaged to appreciate the facts and law, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that, on credible information having been received by the Investigating Officer regarding selling of arrack along with other liquor without having any valid license or permit etc., the Investigating Officer secured the panchas and also along with staff, went to the spot. On seeing them, it is stated that, the petitioner herein had escaped from the place. On seeing them, it is stated that, the petitioner herein had escaped from the place. A search was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses by the Investigating Officer and they found two plastic bags containing arrack and beer of different company. PW.5 being an Investigating Officer, registered the case and conducted part of investigation and handed over the further investigation to PW.3. PW.3 after receiving the chemical report, submitted the charge sheet. 16. Now, it is relevant to refer the evidence of PW.5. In her evidence, she has admitted that, she has not secured any document to show that the petitioner is the owner of the said house and it is also admitted that, she has not secured the local persons as panch witnesses to the seizure mahazar. No doubt, when the specific question was put to PW.5, she has admitted that, no local persons were willing to participate in the investigating process to be act as panch witnesses. 17. It is also noted here that, First Information Report was registered based on the spot mahazar and no independent information either oral or written given by any person to register FIR. It is needless to say that, unless there is information in respect of cognizable offence either oral or documentary as stipulated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, First Information Report cannot be registered. In the present case, the First Information Report has been registered on the basis of spot cum seizure mahazar, which is unsustainable and acting upon such information, and convicting the petitioner which is held to be erroneous and illegal. 18. The Courts below have failed to notice these aspects together and recorded the conviction of the petitioner appears to be erroneous. In exercise the Revisional jurisdiction, on such error of conviction, is justified and the said conviction needs to be set-aside. 19. In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as under:- Point No.(i) - “Negative” Point No.(ii) - “Affirmative” 20. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. 19. In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as under:- Point No.(i) - “Negative” Point No.(ii) - “Affirmative” 20. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 14.06.2012 in C.C.No.953/2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmagalur and judgment and order dated 10.07.2014 in Crl.A.No.114/2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur are set aside. (iii) The petitioner is acquitted for the offence under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.