Procedural non-compliance with search warrant requirements under the Karnataka Excise Act vitiates the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

ORDER :

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

"a) Issue an appropriate order and quash the FIR Cr.No.55/2023/24 filed by the respondent - Inspector of Excise, Yelahanka Range, Bangalore District, against the petitioner, which is submitted before the Hon'ble VII Addl. CMM at Bengaluru, registered for an alleged offence p/u/s 11, 14, 15, 32, 34, 38(A), 40, 43(A) of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court.

b) Pass such other orders, as the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 22.03.2024, without obtaining a warrant or a Police report and without recording reasons to believe as to why the warrant and the Police report should be dispensed with, the respondent- Police seized the subject liquor bottles from the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned seizure as well as proceedings are contrary to Sections 53 and 54 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965 as held by this Court in the case of Shiva Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka by Excise Inspector and another, [Crl.P.No.5879/2024, DD 21.01.2025] inasmuch neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons to believe have been recorded in writing so as to dispense with the requirement of obtaining a warrant, much less obtaining a police report prior to seizing the subject liquor from the petitioner, and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the case of Shivakumar (supra), this Court held as under:

"3. In addition to reiterating the contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, before conducting the impugned search and seizure on 05^th June, 2021, whereby, the respondents are alleged to have seized the liquor bottles from the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondents to either obtain a warrant or record reasons to believe in writing so as to dispense with the obtaining of warrant as mandated under Section 54 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT . In this context, it is submitted that, in the absence of reasons to believe recorded in writing so as to dispense with the requirement of obtaining of warrant, the impugned proceedings resulting in seizure of liquor bottles from the petitioner and culminating in the impugned F.I.R. and charge sheet are contrary to the aforesaid provisions and the same deserves to be quashed.

4. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned F.I.R. and charge sheet in order to point out that before registering the F.I.R., it was incumbent upon the respondents to file a report. In this regard, it is submitted that, except conducting search and seizure on 05^th June, 2021 and drawing up a mahazar, a separate report in this regard was not filed by the respondents before registration of F.I.R., which would also vitiate the impugned F.I.R. and charge sheet. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of DAYANANDA @ R. BABU AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR, HUNSUR RANGE in Criminal Revision Petition No.129 of 2021 disposed of on 04^th April, 2024 and in the case of CHENGAPPA M.S. vs. THE STATE BY EXCISE POLICE STATION , HUNSURU in Criminal Petition No.10259 of 2021 disposed of on 22^nd March, 2024.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleade