Smt. Shamala Shetty, Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Shamala Shetty, Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision petition allowed; the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 (Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shivamogga District) and the confirming judgment in Crl.A.No.20/2025 dated 08.09.2025 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga are set aside.

Issue for consideration

Whether the confiscation of the vehicle ordered by respondent No.2 was sustainable when the seizure of the articles and the vehicle was not proved — the independent witness (PW2) did not support the prosecution and the detecting officer (PW1), an interested witness and party to the raiding party, was the sole witness relied upon. +1 more

Court's answer

The confiscating authority committed an error in passing the order to confiscate the vehicle: the seizure was disputed; PW2, the independent witness, categorically deposed that his signature was taken at the station when he went there, that he did not go to the spot, and that neither the vehicle nor the articles were seized in his presence; and none of the other independent witnesses of the raiding party were examined.

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Court failed to discuss the evidence of PW2 anywhere in its order of confirmation; since the seizure of the articles as well as the vehicle was not proved, the question of confiscating them did not arise, and the approach of both the confiscating authority and the Appellate Court is erroneous.

Key takeaways

PW1, who was a party to the raiding party and an interested witness, ought not to have been believed exclusively; his evidence is not the gospel truth without corroboration.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision (CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025, decided 15.06.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:29011) filed under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C (as S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS) by Smt. Shamala Shetty, widow and legal representative of the deceased owner, challenging (i) the confiscation of a TATA 407 mini lorry (Regn. No.KA.20/A-2532) ordered on 30.12.2024 by the Authorized Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shivamogga (No.EXE/DTCR/470/2004-05) following alleged seizure of banned liquor near Bidare cross, Shivamogga, and (ii) its confirmation by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in Crl.A.No.20/2025 dated 08.09.2025. The driver had been acquitted in the criminal case, where the seizure was not proved. Before the confiscating authority only PW1 (detecting officer, member of the raiding party — an interested witness) testified in support; PW2, the independent mahazar witness, turned hostile, deposing that his signature was taken at the station and that neither the vehicle nor the articles were seized in his presence; no other raiding-party witness was examined. Held (H.P. Sandesh, J.): uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness is not 'gospel truth'; the appellate court confirmed the confiscation without discussing PW2's evidence; the seizure being unproved, confiscation could not stand and the approach of both authorities was erroneous. Petition allowed; confiscation order and confirmation judgment set aside. Note: the factual matrix (¶4) dates the seizure 31.05.2025, while the court's discussion (¶6, ¶11) places the incident in 2005, i.e., about 19 years before the 2024 confiscation proceedings — left unreconciled as printed.

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHAMALA SHETTY, W/O LATE SUNIL KUMAR SHETTY, AGE 47 YEARS, R/O MANJUNATHASWAMY NILAYA, RIGHT SIDE, CHAMEGOWDA AREA, OLD TOWN, AT BHADRAVATHI - 577 301, DISTRICT: SHIVAMOGGA.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT.MANJULADEVI R KAMADDOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF KARNATAKA NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

AUTHORISED OFFICER, AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA RANGE-2, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.20/2025 DATED 08.09.2025 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA IN NO.EXE/DTCR/470/2004-05 DATED 30.12.2024.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

This matter is listed for admission.

Heard Smt. Manjuladevi R Kamaddolli, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for the respondents.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

This revision petition is filed against an order of confiscation of the vehicle and also the confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court.

The factual matrix of the case of prosecution that TATA 407 Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KA.20/A-2532 was seized by the Excise Inspector near Bidare cross, Shivamogga City on 31.05.2025 at 06.00 p.m. and driver was transporting 100 ml liquor of 200 sachets and 600 litre, 406.08 liter liquor which is banned for sale in Karnataka and so also, he was not having any permit or license to transport the same. Confiscation proceedings was concluded by respondent No.2 as per the order dated 30.12.2024 and directed confiscation of the vehicle. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the Senior Excise Inspector, Shivmogga who was detecting officer. He has supported the case of prosecution and testified his evidence. PW2 witness was examined to prove the mahazar and he is an independent witness. But he has not supported the case of prosecution and treated as hostile and nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW2. The impugned order dated 30.12.2024, taken note of

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

material facts of the case, seizure of the vehicle and also the articles which were seized. Respondent No.2 considering only the evidence of PW1, confiscated the vehicle. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that there was sufficient opportunity to the driver of vehicle or appellant to lodge the complaint against the concerned officers, to their superior officers, but the same was not done. The total inaction and silence speaks against the appellant and it supports the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence given by the appellant do not inspire the confidence of the Court. On the other hand, the evidence given by PW1 found trustworthy and there are no reason to disbelieve his evidence and confirmed the same.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision petition would vehemently contend that both respondent No.2 and also the Appellate Court committed an error in confiscating the vehicle and confirming the same. The very mahazar of seizure of vehicle was not proved and witness, who has been examined as PW2 has not supported and his

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

evidence is not trustworthy evidence. Conviction only based on PW1 is an erroneous order.

The counsel would submits that evidence of PW1 is not gospel truth and DW1 also examined before the confiscating authority and the very owner of the vehicle is no more and hence, wife Shyamala has appeared before the authority as legal representative of the owner. The incident was occurred on 31.05.2005 and when the vehicle was seized, that is more than 25 years ago and even vehicle is going to be scrapped. However, the same has not taken note of by confiscating authority and confiscating authority only believed the evidence of PW1.

The counsel also would submit that even while confiscating the vehicle, the authority comes to know that even accused was acquitted and the very seizure of the articles were not proved and inspite of it, passed the order.

The counsel also would submit that the Appellate Court also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that PW1 evidence is trustworthy and even PW2 has not supported the case of prosecution.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent - State would submit that in order to prove the case, examined the PW1 before the confiscating authority and his evidence is consistent and trustworthy and not having any enmity against the owner of the vehicle or against the driver. When such being the case, not committed any error and the Appellate Court also rightly considered the material available on record. Though, PW2 has turned hostile and he was treated as hostile and cross-examined and it does not require any interference.

Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent-State, it is not in dispute that a case was registered against the driver and also not in dispute that he was acquitted in a criminal proceedings and also the fact that the very seizure was not proved before the Criminal Court and before the confiscating authority also, though examined PW1, who is an interested witness, his evidence is consistent with regard to the seizure is concerned. But his evidence is very clear only with regard to the seizure. He was the party to the raiding party and none of the other

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

independent witnesses of raiding party were examined and apart from that when the very seizure was disputed and witness examined as PW2, who is an independent witness, he did not support the case but he categorically deposes that his signature was taken in the station, when he went to the station. He did not go to the spot and in his presence, vehicle was not seized. Even articles were also not seized. When such material available on record, the confiscating authority committed an error in passing an order to confiscate the vehicle.

The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that the very evidence of PW1 is trustworthy in paragraph No.13 and there are no reasons to disbelieve his evidence, but fails to discuss the evidence of PW2 and nowhere in the order of confirmation, the appellate court discussed the evidence of PW2 and when the very seizure of the articles, as well as the vehicle was not proved, question of confiscating the same doesn't arise. The very approach of confiscating authority as well as the Appellate Court is erroneous, when there are no cogent evidence before the Court and also to take note of

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

HC-KAR

incident was taken place in the year 2005 and confiscation proceedings was taken place in 2024, almost after 19 years and in the meanwhile, the vehicle which was seized. As rightly contented by the counsel appearing for petitioners that it would be a vehicle fit for scrap. But fails to take note of the fact that very seizure was not proved before the criminal proceedings as well as confiscating authority and ought not to have believed the exclusive evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW1 is not the gospel truth without the corroboration. Under the circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and hence, the very confiscation of vehicle and confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are liable to be set aside.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following order.

ORDER

(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed .

(ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 - The Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shivamogga District, which was confirmed by the judgment passed

NC: 2026:KHC:29011 CRL.RP No. 1833 of 2025

9 -

HC-KAR

in Crl.A.No.20/2025 dated 08.09.2025 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga and are set aside.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

BH

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30