The central legal point established in the judgment is that conducting a search and seizure without a valid search warrant, as required by the Karnataka Excise Act, can vitiate the proceedings and amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C. NO.1565/2022 on the file of J.M.F.C-III, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Ss. 32, 34 and 38-A of Karnataka Excise Act (for short "K.E Act).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that a case in Crime No.25/2022 was registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 32, 34 and 38-A of K.E Act, alleging that on 3/4/2022 at 8.10 a.m., on receipt of credible information when complainant and others conducted raid and searched the house of petitioner No.1, he found large quantity of liquor worth Rs.5, 42, 440.00 and on inquiry he disclosed that petitioner No.2 has stocked the same. Thus, case was registered against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and ultimately charge sheet came to be filed in C.C. No.1565/2022 which is being challenged in this petition.

3. Respondent has appeared through learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. The search conducted without a valid search warrant is vitiated. No valid reasons are forthcoming as to why the search warrant was not secured. In the absence of complying with the mandatory requirement the entire proceedings are vitiated and prays to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the emergent situation the investing officer has conducted search and later on submitted the report to the Court and it is a matter for evidence to establish the said fact and prays to reject the petition.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

7. As evident from the complaint averments and the documents placed on record, the search and seizure in question are conducted in the residential premises of petitioner No.1. According to the complainant the said information was received at 7.15 a.m. and after securing the witnesses and collecting material for the seizure, he raided the said premises along with the staff at 8.15 a.m and seized large quantity of liquor.

8. Sec. 54 of the Excise Act, which deals with power to search without warrant, provides that the said power can be exercised only when the investigating officer has reason to believe that there is likelihood of the offender escaping or concealing the evidence of the offence and after recording grounds of his belief may proceed to conduct the raid or search without warrant. It reads as follows:

54. Power to search without warrant:-Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any Police Officer not below the rank of an Officer- in-charge of a Police Station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offence under Sec. 32 , Sec. 33 , Sec. 34 , Sec. 36 or Sec. 37 has been, is being or is likely to be, committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief.

a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and

b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.

9. However, in the complaint no reasons are forthcoming as to why the complainant failed to secure a search warrant. Consequently no justification is forthcoming in the complaint as to the conducting of raid without warrant. In the absence of complying with the mandatory requirement, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

10. Thus from the above discussion, I hold that in continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In the result the petition succeeds a