Sri. Amanullah Khan Rep. by his SPA Holder vs State

N. Ananda, J.—There are concurrent findings of Authorised Officer and I-appellate court. The Authorized Officer has held that lorry bearing No. MEZ 5750 of which petitioner is the registered owner was used for transportation of liquor ,without permit and petitioner has misused vehicle. The learned Judge of I-appellate court on re-appreciation of evidence has confirmed the findings of Authorised Officer. This court while exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.P.C., does not sit as a court of second appeal. This court can interfere with the impugned judgment if the courts below have committed glaring errors in appreciation of evidence or errors of law resulting manifest injustice to petitioner.

The learned counsel for petitioner absent. Heard learned HCGP for State.

Before I-appellate court, it was contended that Investigating Officer seized vehicle, without recording reasons as required u/s 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, ''the Act''). The learned Judge of I-appellate court has held that Investigating Officer has recorded reasons for not obtaining search warrant while conducting search and seizure of vehicle.

The law is fairly well settled that if Investigating Officer has not been able to obtain search warrant, he can record reasons for not obtaining search warrant and proceed with search. The petitioner has failed to establish that his vehicle was not misused or he had taken reasonable steps to prevent misuse of his vehicle. When vehicle of petitioner was used for illegal transportation of liquor, without permit, vehicle is liable for confiscation. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition is dismissed.