Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 593 (KAR)

Mohan S/o Shankar Chavan v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-26

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.212/2018, on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur for the offences under Sections 32 and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: “Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 32 of Karnataka Excise Act 1965, and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of one (1) year for the offence punishable U/s 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act 1965, and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Further accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one(1) month for the offence punishable U/s 273 of IPC. The accused is entitled for the benefit of set off as per Sec.428 of CrP.C. All the sentences for imprisonment shall run concurrently. MO.1 is ordered to be returned to the concerned department after appeal period for disposal in accordance with law.” 3. The validity of the order of conviction and sentence was questioned by the accused before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.28/2022. 4. Learned District Judge after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, by a considered judgment dated 15.07.2023 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by same, the accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 6.1. An Excise Official received a credible information when he was in his office on 23.01.2017 at 05-00 p.m., that somebody is possessing the illicit liquor and they are transporting the same on a motorcycle. Accordingly, a raid party was formed, comprising of head of the raid party, sub-staff and two independent panchas and all of them went near the Kakhandaki cross as per the credible information. 6.2. When they were watching for the suspect, they noticed a motorcycle with a bag on the petrol tank. Accordingly, a raid party was formed, comprising of head of the raid party, sub-staff and two independent panchas and all of them went near the Kakhandaki cross as per the credible information. 6.2. When they were watching for the suspect, they noticed a motorcycle with a bag on the petrol tank. On suspicion, the motorcycle was intercepted and on such interception, the accused tried to ran away from the spot by parking the motorcycle. The sub-staff of the head of the raid party was successful in apprehending him. 6.3. In the presence of panchas, search memo was prepared and bag was searched. On searching the bag, one white plastic can containing 10 liters of liquid was found with a nasty smell. They found that the contents of the plastic can was a country made liquor and the motorcyclist did not possess any pass or permit for possessing the same or transporting the same on TVS Star CT 110 motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/W-4391. Accordingly, they enquired the apprehended person about his whereabouts. Then he has revealed his name as Mohan Shankar Chavan. Since the liquid found in the plastic can was illicit liquor, the same was seized under the seizure panchanama, samples were drawn and thereafter he was handed over to the Station House Officer, wherein a case came to registered and after thorough investigation, chargesheet came to be filed. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner and after thorough trial, accused has been convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused approached the First Appellate Court, wherein his appeal came to be dismissed on merits. 9. Being further aggrieved by same, petitioner is before this Curt in this revision petition. 10. Sri S. S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused. 11. Alternatively, Sri S.S. Mamadapur would contend that accused is a first time offender and therefore, benefit of probation be accorded to the petitioner and sought for allowing the petition. 12. 11. Alternatively, Sri S.S. Mamadapur would contend that accused is a first time offender and therefore, benefit of probation be accorded to the petitioner and sought for allowing the petition. 12. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the revision grounds in toto by contending that none of the members of the raid party did nurture previous enmity or animosity against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in the case and very fact of seizure of 10 liters of country made illicit liquor from the can that was being transported in the motorcycle, concludes the offence and sought for dismissal of revision petition. 13. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that based on the credible information, head of the raid party formed a raid team and they are all proceeded to Kakhandaki cross and then spotted a motorcycle. Motorcyclist tried to ran away from the spot and later on he was apprehended and enquired about the contents in the bag. When there was no satisfactory explanation, bag was opened under the search memo and the can contained 10 liters of liquid with nasty smell. Later on, it was found that it’s a country made liquor. Samples were drawn and liquors were seized under the seizure memo. Sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, got confirmed that the contents of the can were illicit liquor. 14. These aspects of the matter have been taken note of by the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned judgment with proper and logical reasoning. For having possessed illicit liquor, there was no pass or permit with the accused resulting in commission of the offences under Section 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act and having regard to the quantity, under Section 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act and the same was being sought to be sold, therefore attracts all ingredients to attract the offence under Section 273 of IPC. 15. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, needs no interference that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, order of conviction needs to be maintained. 16. 15. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by the Trial Magistrate which has been rightly re-appreciated by the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, needs no interference that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, order of conviction needs to be maintained. 16. Having said thus, insofar as the appropriate sentence is concerned, the learned Trial Magistrate has ordered minimum punishment prescribed under the statute and minimum fine has been imposed. 17. Therefore, there is no scope for according the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in view of the fact that minimum punishment is prescribed under the statute and Probation of Offenders Act is not made applicable to such offences. 18. Hence, none of the grounds urged in the revision petition are sufficient enough to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 19. Accordingly, the following ORDER (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. (b) Time is granted for the revision petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court for serving the remaining part of the sentence till 20.07.2025. (c) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith.