Bangalore District Court
Krishna Murthy P vs G Chandrashekar on 13 July, 2026
KABC030093422022
Presented on : 05-02-2022
Registered on : 05-02-2022
Decided on : 13-07-2026
Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 13th Day of July, 2026
C.C. No.2519/2022
Cr.No.20/2020-21/3603IE/360307
State by Excise Police Station,
R.M.V. Range,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Chandrashekar,
Aged about 56 years,
S/o Sri Gowri Shankar,
R/at No.622, Bandeppa Cross,
7th Cross, Near Kavery wood works,
Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru City.
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
2. Smt. Sharadamma,
Major in Age,
House owner,
R/at No.6/3, 7th Cross,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bengaluru City. ... Accused
(Rep. by Sri. G. M Adv for Accused No.1)
(Rep. by Sri. Nagesh Adv for Accused No.2)
1. Date of commission of 28-06-2021 at 5.50 pm
offence
2. Date of FIR 28-06-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 29-10-2021
4. Name of Complainant Sri Krishnamurthy.P
5. Offences complained of Under Section 14, 15,
32, 38(A) and 43(A)
Karnataka Excise Act.
6. Date of framing of 04-08-2025
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 19-11-2025
of Evidence
2
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
9. Date of Judgment is 13-07-2026
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 13-07-2026
11. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Excise Inspector, R.M.V. Range, Bengaluru
City submitted charge sheet against accused No.1
and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 14,
15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 28-05-2021 at 5.50
pm at house No.662, near Ganga Kaveri Wood Works,
7th Cross, Bandeppa Road, Yeshwantpur, within the
limits of RMV Excise, Bangalore, the accused No.1
was in illegal possession of 187 tetra packets of
Highward Punch Fine Whiskey each 90 ml and 42
tetra packs of Bag Piper Whiskey each 180 ml
totalling to 24.39 liters of liquor without any license
under the couch in the hall of the said house which
belongs to accused No. 2 for purpose of sale to public.
3
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of
credible information, CW6/PW4 Sri Krishnamurthy,
on 28-06-2021, along staff raided the house No. 662,
Bandeppa Road, 7th Cross, prepared search warrant
and found various brands of liquor in the house,
mahazar was conduced, samples were collected,
accused and the seized properties were brought to the
office and complaint was prepared as per Ex.P15 and
registered FIR as per Ex.P16 and handed over the
case papers to CW7.
4. Investigation: After receipt of case papers
from PW4, CW7/PW2 Sri Rahul, Excise Sub
Inspector, continued the investigation, the seized
properties were sent to FSL for chemical examination,
obtained the report as per Ex.P8, obtained
information about the ownership of said house
through Ex.P9 to 13, after completion of investigation
submitted the charge sheet against accused No.1 and
2 for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had
taken cognizance for the offences alleged against the
accused No.1 and 2.
6. At pre – cognizance stage the accused No.1
was enlarged on bail by the order dated 01-07-2021
and accused No.2 was enlarged on bail by the order
dated 30-04-2024 at post – cognizance stage.
4
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and
counsel for accused No.1 and 2, the charges for the
offences punishable under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A)
and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act has been framed,
read over and explained to the accused in the
language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 7 witnesses,
examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents
and MO1 and closed their side. On account of
examination of CW2, the examination of CW3 and
CW4 were given up by the order dated 19-11-2025
and on account of marking of FSL report through
PW2/IO, the examination of CW5 is given up by the
order dated 23-02-2026. process of PW4 duly
served and did not subject for cross examination
and hence her evidence was discarded by the
order dated 08/07/2026.
5
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
accused No.1 and 2 were examined as per section
313 of Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all incriminating
evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution
witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that On 28-05-2021 at 5.50
pm at house No.662, near Ganga
Kaveri Wood Works, 7th Cross,
Bandeppa Road, Yeshwantpur,
within the limits of RMV Excise,
Bangalore, the accused No.1 was
in illegal possession of 187 tetra
packets of Highward Punch Fine
Whiskey each 90 ml and 42 tetra
packs of Bag Piper Whiskey each
180 ml totalling to 24.39 liters of
liquor without any license under
the couch in the hall of the said
house which belongs to accused
6
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
No. 2 for purpose of sale to public
thereby resulted in commission of
offences punishable under Section
14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of
Karnataka Excise Act?
2. What order?
13. The court’s findings on the above points are
as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case
as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the witnesses which are as
follows;
i. CW2 Sri Chidananda V Patil, Excise
Constable, examined as PW1 deposed that, on 28-06-
2021, whilst patrolling in Yeshwantpur during the
Covid-19 lock-down, on receipt of credible
information he along with staff went to the spot in
departmental jeep No.KA-01-G-6016 and prepared
searched warrant to search house No.197 and found
7
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
tetra packets of 90 ml Whiskey and 42 tetra packets
of 180 ml Black Piper Whiskey in a cloth bag, Rs.
140/- were found, later 30 tetra packets were taken
as sample for chemical examination , the department
seal CMV and a sample paper was affixed and raid
mahazar was conducted from 5-50 pm to 7 pm. He
identified search warrant, raid mahazar, list of
articles, arrest memo, sample seals as per Ex.1 to 6
and tetra packets as per MO1.
ii. CW7 Sri Rahul, Excise sub Inspector,
examined as PW2, and deposed that, after receipt of
case papers from CW6, seized properties were sent
for chemical testing through CW4 and secured Ex.P8
report, the details of Sharadamma as the owner of the
house were obtained from the revenue officials, and a
notice was sent to the accused No.2 and notice was
sent to owner of the house by post as Ex.P12, which
was returned, and the said postal envelope was
marked as Ex.P13, that at the time of the incident,
the 2nd stage of Covid-19 was in force and at that
time, shops could have been opened from 6 am to 10
am as per the SOP, but the accused No.1 purchased
tetra packets of liquor and kept them for sale at his
house, and that the accused No.2 had left the house
for the accused No.1 to carry out illegal activities, and
a charge sheet was filed against them in the court.
8
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
iii. CW1 Sri Dinesh, pancha witness examined
as PW3 identified his signatures on Ex.P1, 2, 3 and 5
and 6 as per Ex.P1A, 2A, 3A, 5A and 6B and Ex.P14
notice as per Ex.P14A, and deposed that no
properties were seized in his presence and he does
not know the accused No.1.
iv. CW6 namely Sri Krishnamurthy, informant
cum Excise Inspector examined as PW4 deposed
that, on 28-06-2021, on receipt of information that
liquor was being illegally stored and sold at house no.
662, 7th cross, Bandeppa road and went to the spot
in the departmental vehicle no. KA-01-G-6016 and
prepared a detailed report as per Ex.P1. When the
house was searched, a total of 187 tetra packets of
Hywards Punch Fine Whiskey measuring each 90 ml,
42 tetra packets each measuring 180 ml, Black Piper
Deluxe Whiskey in a cloth bag, and Rs.140 were
found. The liquor tetra-packets was sent for chemical
examination to the FSL, sealed, and a sample paper
was affixed, the liquor tetra-packets were subject to
the seized list of properties and brought to the Excise
police station, a complaint was made as per Ex.P15,
an FIR was registered under Ex.P16 and the case
papers was sent for further investigation to CW10.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 14, 15,
32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965
which reads as under
9
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
14. Possession of excisable
articles in excess of the quantity
prescribed.- (1) The State
Government may, by notification,
prescribe a limit of quantity for
the possession of any intoxicant:
Provided that different limits may
be prescribed for different
qualities of the same article.
(2) No person shall have in his
possession any quantity of any
intoxicant in excess of the limit
prescribed under sub-section (1),
except under the authority and in
accordance with the terms and
conditions of,-
(a) a license for the manufacture,
cultivation, collection, sale or
supply of such article; or
(b) a permit granted by the
Deputy Commissioner in that
behalf.
15. Sale of excisable articles
without license prohibited.- (1) No
10
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
intoxicant shall be sold except
under the authority and subject
to the terms and conditions of a
license granted in that behalf:
Provided that, subject to such
restrictions and conditions as the
Excise Commissioner may by
general or special order specify,-
(a) a person having the right to
the toddy drawn from any tree
may sell such toddy without a
license to a person licensed to
manufacture or sell toddy under
this Act;
(b) a cultivator or owner of any
plant from which an intoxicating
drug is produced may sell without
a license those portions of the
plant from which the intoxicating
drug is manufactured or
produced, to any person licensed
under this Act to sell,
manufacture or export the
intoxicating drugs or to any
officer, whom the Excise
Commissioner may generally or
specially authorize.
11
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
(2) A license for sale under sub-
section (1), shall be granted,-
(a) by the Deputy Commissioner,
if the sale is within a district, or
(b) by the Excise Commissioner, if
the sale is in more than one
district:
Provided that subject to such
conditions as may be determined
by the Excise Commissioner, a
license for sale granted under the
Excise law in force in any other
State may be deemed to be a
license granted under this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall
apply to the sale of any liquor
lawfully procured by any person
for his private use and sold by
him or on his behalf or on behalf
of his representatives in interest
upon his quitting a station or
after his decease.
(4) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-sections (1) and
(2), no club shall supply liquor to
its members on payment of a12
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022price or of any fee or subscription
except under the authority of and
subject to the terms and
conditions of a license granted in
that behalf by the Excise
Commissioner and on payment of
such fees according to a scale of
fees to be fixed by the State
Government in this behalf.
32. Penalty for illegal import, etc.-
(1) Whoever, in contravention of
this Act, or any rule, notification
or order, made, issued or given
thereunder, or of any license or
permit granted under this Act,
imports, exports, transports,
manufactures, collects or
possesses any intoxicant, shall,
on conviction, 1 [be punished for
each offense with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 2 [five years and
with fine which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees.]1 [Provided that the punishment,-
(i) for the first offense shall be not
less than [one year rigorous13
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022imprisonment and fine of not less
than ten thousand rupees]; and
(ii) for the second and subsequent
offences shall be not less than
[two years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of not less than twenty
thousand rupees] 2 for each such
offence.]
(2) xxxxIt appears from the record that the search
warrant from magistrate could not be secured for
search of house of accused for storage of liquors in
her house as CW6/PW4/Detecting Officer received
the information at 05.30 pm on 28/06/2021 and
hence he assigned the reasons at 5.50 pm in the
presence of pancha witnesses namely Sri. Dinesh
(PW3) and Sri. Chidananad (PW1) as per Ex.P1.
16. Detecting officer/CW6/PW4 has not stated
about the non-compliance as per Section 100 of
CR.P.C whilst drawing seizure cum spot Mahazar on
28-06-2021 as per Ex.P2. In this regard, it is
relevant to quote section 58 of Karnataka Excise Act
and Section 100(4) of Criminal procedure Code which
is reiterated as follows;
Section 58 of the Karnataka Excise Act contemplates the 14 KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
procedure for arrest, search etc.
Unless otherwise, provided the
provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘code’) relating to
arrest, detention in custody,
searches, summons, warrants of
arrests, search warrants, the
production of persons arrested and
disposal of things shall apply to all
the actions taken under the Act.
Section 100 (4) of the Code of
criminal procedure mandates
(4) Before making a search under
this Chapter, the officer or other
person about to make it shall call
upon two or more independent and
respectable inhabitants of the
locality in which the place to be
searched is situate or of any other
locality if no such inhabitant of the
said locality is available or is
willing to be a witness to the
search, to attend and witness the
search and may issue an order in
writing to them or any of them so
to do.
15
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
Ex.P2 appears that the spot i.e., house No.662,
near Ganga Kaveri Wood Works, 7th Cross,
Bandeppa Road, Yeshwantpur, within the limits of
RMV Excise, Bangalore, was bounded on the East by
house belongs to Nanjappa, West by House belongs to
Bachappa, North by Bandappa Road, South by house
belongs to Ramesh. As per Section 100 of Cr.P.C., the
police authority has to make an attempt to call for
independent inhabitants of the locality in which the
place to be searched is situated. In fact, in this
regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords
assistance to the aforesaid finding, by providing that
whenever any search is made, two or more
independent and respectable inhabitants of the
locality are required to be made witnesses to such
search, and the search is to be made in their
presence. However, Ex.P2 does not depict that the
CW6/detecting officer made any attempt to call local
inhabitants to the alleged spot. Under Section 100(8)
of Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such
non-willing public witness liable for criminal
prosecution under section 187 of IPC. If the
independent witnesses were not available for search,
the CW6/detecting officer could have secured the
independent witnesses from other locality despite the
availability of witnesses as the house was bounded by
East, West and South by residential house of
Nanjappa, Bachappa and Ramesh.
16
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
17. CW6/Detecting officer did not take
photographs or video graphed about the seizure cum
spot procedure whilst seizing liquors through Ex.P2
despite factum that they were in possession of smart
phones.
18. The alleged offences are being cognizable
offence however CW6/Detecting officer proceeded
with investigation without registration of FIR as per
Ex. P. 16. In this context, it is relevant to rely upon
Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C which reads as under
“154. Information in cognizable cases.
–(1) Every information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction,
and be read over to the informant;
and every such information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing
as aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form
as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that
if the information is given by the
woman against whom an offence17
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022under section 326A, section 326B,
section 354, section 354A, section
354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, [section 376A,section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
is alleged to have been committed or
attempted, then such information
shall be recorded, by a woman police
officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that– (a) in the event
that the person against whom an
offence under section 354, section
354A, section 354B,section 354C,
section 354D, section 376, 1[section
376A, section 376AB, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D, section
376DA, section 376DB], section 376E
or section 509 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have
been committed or attempted, is
temporarily or permanently mentally
or physically disabled, then such
information shall be recorded by a
police officer, at the residence of the
person seeking to report such offence
or at a convenient place of such18
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022person’s choice, in the presence of an
interpreter or a special educator, as
the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information
shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the
statement of the person recorded by a
Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of
sub-section (5A) of section 164 as
soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub-section (1) shall
be given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of an officer in charge of a
police station to record the
information referred to in sub-section
(1) may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to
the Superintendent of Police
concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct
an investigation to be made by any
police officer subordinate to him, in19
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022the manner provided by this Code,
and such officer shall have all the
powers of an officer in charge of the
police station in relation to that
offence.
157. Procedure for investigation.–(1)
If, from information received or
otherwise, an officer in charge of a
police station has reason to suspect
the commission of an offence which
he is empowered under section 156 to
investigate, he shall forthwith send a
report of the same to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such
offence upon a police report and shall
proceed in person, or shall depute one
of his subordinate officers not being
below such rank as the State
Government may, by general or
special order, prescribe in this behalf,
to proceed, to the spot, to investigate
the facts and circumstances of the
case, and, if necessary, to take
measures for the discovery and arrest
of the offender:
Provided that– (a) when information
as to the commission of any such20
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022offence is given against any person by
name and the case is not of a serious
nature, the officer in charge of a police
station need not proceed in person or
depute a subordinate officer to make
an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in
charge of a police station that there is
no sufficient ground for entering on
an investigation, he shall not
investigate the case. [Provided further
that in relation to an offence of rape,
the recording of statement of the
victim shall be conducted at the
residence of the victim or in the place
of her choice and as far as practicable
by a woman police officer in the
presence of her parents or guardian or
near relatives or social worker of the
locality.](2) In each of the cases mentioned in
clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to
sub-section (1), the officer in charge of
the police station shall state in his
report his reasons for not fully
complying with the requirements of
that subsection, and, in the case21
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022mentioned in clause (b) of the said
proviso, the officer shall also forthwith
notify to the informant, if any, in such
manner as may be prescribed by the
State Government, the fact that he
will not investigate the case or cause
it to be investigated.”
Thus, it is clear from above provisions that there
are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be
registered by the informant which was duly signed by
him. Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police
officer himself on any information received by him. In
both the cases, the information should be reduced
into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be
carried out. The search carried out by the
CW6/Detecting officer as per Ex.P2 is contrary to the
law and the same is bad in law and the said principle
is appreciated in the case of SRI DAYANANDA @ R.
BABU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN
LAWS(KAR) 2024-4- 16.
19. The relevant provision as far as accused No.
2 concerned is as under
38(A) Outlines the penalty for
allowing premises to be used for
the commission of offences under
the Act. Specifically, it states that22
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022anyone who knowingly allows
their property or premises to be
used for committing offenses
punishable under sections 32, 33,
34, 36, and 37 will be punished
as if they had committed those
offenses.
43. Liability of certain things to
confiscation.-Whenever an offence
has been committed, which is
punishable under this Act, the
following things shall be liable to
confiscation, namely :-
(1) any intoxicant, material, still,
utensil, implement or apparatus
in respect of, or by means of
which, such offence has been
committed;
(2) any intoxicant lawfully
imported, transported,
manufactured, had in possession
or sold along with, or in addition
to, any intoxicant liable to
confiscation under clause (1); and
(3) any receptacle, package, or
covering in which anything liable
to confiscation under clause (1) or23
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022clause (2), is found, and the other
contents, if any, of such
receptacle, package or covering
and any animal, vehicle, [except
the vehicles owned by the State
Road Transport Undertaking or
Corporation] 1 vessel, raft or other
conveyance used for carrying the
same.
Thus, Ex.P10 i.e., the letter issued by Bruhut
Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, Yeshwanthpura Sub
Division, S C Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore that
house No.662, near Ganga Kaveri Wood Works, 7th
Cross, Bandeppa Road, Yeshwantpur, within the
limits of RMV Excise, Bangalore i.e., PID Number 3-
66-6/3 is in the name of Smt. Sharadamma i.e.,
accused No.2, however the prosecution has not
established the intention of the accused No.2 that she
knowingly permitted the accused No.1 to use the
house for storage of liquors.
20. Mere marking of BBMP report through
PW2/IO, does not absolve the burden of proof from
prosecution end. It appears from the record, IO/PW2
has mechanically filed charge sheet whether the
accused No.2 has given her house with an intention
to storage of liquors as per Ex.P13 when the notice
for investigation was not served upon her for enquiry
24
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
which demonstrates goes to show that IO/PW2 did
not conduct the investigation properly rather
considering her absence, has erred in coming to a
conclusion that the accused No.2 has knowledge of
the accused No.1 using the house for storage of
liquors.
21. Soon after the seizure of properties, the
PW4(detecting officer) and PW2(Investigating Officer)
ought to have intimated the same to the concerned
authority as required under Section 43A of the
K.E.Act and also Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. to the
jurisdictional Magistrate. In the case on hand, the
PW4 (detecting officer) and PW2 (Investigating Officer)
has not reflected the date of reporting of seizure of
properties to the higher authority or to the
jurisdictional magistrate. There is no reference in
submitting the seizure report to the concerned
authority which is clear violation of the provisions of
Section 43-A of the K.E. Act.
22. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 does
not depict that the accused No.2 has knowledge
about the said alleged illegal storage of tetra packets.
Prior knowledge of the accused No.2 or any prima
facie material to show that she had knowledge of
usage of her house for selling of liquor tetra-packets
was not established by the prosecution and hence by
25
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
relying the decision of PalaKurti S/o. Dharmarayya
Dorebabu Vs State of Karnataka in Crl.Pettion No.
20661/2019 dated 28/01/2020.
23. PW2 is the investigating officer after the
receipt of case papers from PW5, neither visited the
spot nor enquired with accused and based upon
available records, has mechanically submitted the
charge sheet without ascertaining the truthiness of
Ex.P2 i.e., spot cum seizure mahazar. As discussed
above, the very seizure of MO1 from custody of the
accused No.1 is very doubtful as no local inhabitant
was taken as a witnesses on to Ex.P2 to summarize
the version of police witnesses on 28/06/2021.
24. Possibility of misuse of specimen seal of the
investigating officer: As per the version of prosecution
witnesses, after sealing the case property with the
departmental seal as CMV mentioned in the sample
seal and the Ex.P5 (spot cum seizure mahazar does
not depict the particulars of sample seal) and the
sample seal was not prepared at the spot as Ex.P2
bears the Crime No.20/2021-22/360307 dated
28/06/2021. However, the seal was not handed over
to any independent superior officer. There is nothing
on record to suggest that PW4 (detecting officer) and
PW2 made any efforts to handover the seal to any
26
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
independent superior officer. The seal remained with
the excise police officials of same police station and
therefore the possibility of tampering with the case
property cannot be eschewed. Moreover, it is not even
the case of prosecution that the seal was not within
the reach of IO and thus, there was no scope of
tampering of case property. In this regard, it has been
held in the case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana
reported in 2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 held in
paragraph 7 that:
“….The very purpose of giving seal to
an independent person is to avoid
tampering of the case property. It is
well settled that till the case property
is not dispatched to the forensic
science laboratory, the seal should not
be available to the prosecuting agency
and in the absence of such a
safeguard the possibility of seal,
contraband and the samples being
tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v.
State, (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
“9. … The seal after use were kept by
the police officials themselves
therefore the possibility of tempering
with the contents of the sealed parcel27
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022cannot be ruled out. It was very
essential for the prosecution to have
established from stage to stage the
fact that the sample was not tempered
with. The prosecution could have
proved from the CFSL form itself and
from the road certificate as to what
articles were taken from the
Malkahana. Once a doubt is created
in the preservation of the sample the
benefit of the same should go to the
accused…”….
It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that the
seal after use was handed over to the independent
superior officer. Even the I.O. PW4/detecting officer
and PW2/IO did not utter a word regarding the
handing over of the seal after use to their superior
officer. Therefore, the conclusion which can be
arrived at is that the seal remained with the
Investigating Officer or with the other member of
raiding party therefore the possibility of interference
or tempering of the seal and the contents of the
sample cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the
aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal
and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
Thereby this court cannot give any credential
/evidentiary value to the Ex.P2. A doubt raises about
the authenticity of sealing of MO1 when the28
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022CW6/PW4 failed to handover the specimen seal to
his superior officer immediately after the alleged
seizure.
25. In the present case, on perusal of the entire
evidence, except the evidence of police witnesses
namely PW1 to PW3, there is absolutely no other
evidence to connect the accused No. 1 and 2. The
evidence of police witnesses cannot be considered as
a substantial piece of evidence to convict the accused.
More so the prosecution failed to prove the spot cum
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 through independent
witnesses. At the best, evidence of police can be used
as corroboration in addition to substantiate piece of
evidence. In the absence of substantial piece of
evidence, the evidence of police witnesses is not
sufficient to hold the accused guilt, thereby this court
answers the above point No.1 in the negative.
26. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion
and the findings to the above point No.1, this court
proceeds to pass the following:
29
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are
found not guilty and acquitted
from the offences punishable
under Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A)
and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise
Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be
in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 is ordered to be
destroyed after expiry of appeal
period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected
by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the
13th day of July, 2026)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
30
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Chidananda V Patil/Excise
Constable
PW2 : Sri Rahul/Excise Sub Inspector
PW3 : Sri Dinesh/Panch witness
PW4 : Sri Krishnamurthy/Excise InspectorDocuments marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Search without warrant/PW1
Ex.P2 : Spot cum raid mahazar/PW1
Ex.P3 : List of article/PW1
Ex.P4 : Arrest memo/PW1
Ex.P5 : Sample seal/PW1
Ex.P6 : Sample chit/
Ex.P7 : Letter addressed to FSL/PW2
Ex.P8 : Report of chemical anlysis/PW2
Ex.P9 : Letter addresed to Revenue office/PW2
Ex.P10 : Letter from o/o Revenue/PW2
Ex.P11 : Endrosment from BBMP/PW2
Ex.P12 : Notice to accused No.2/PW2
Ex.P13 : Envelope/PW2
Ex.P14 : Notice/PW2
Ex.P15 : ಸರಕಾರದ ತರ್ಪೆ ಫಿರಿಯಾದಿ
Ex.P16 : FIR/PW431
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Sample liquor
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
32
KABC030093422022 CC 2519/2022
13-7-2026
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 and 2 are
found not guilty and acquitted from
the offences punishable under
Section 14, 15, 32, 38(A) and 43(A)
of Karnataka Excise Act.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 is ordered to be destroyed
after expiry of appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, B’luru City
33
