Failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure under the Karnataka Excise Act leads to quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings.

ORDER :

S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.

In this petition, the petitioner-accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C. No.23017/2021 on the file of the Hon’ble XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 14 , Section 15 , Section 32 , Section 38A and Section 43 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965, and Section 273 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but has chosen to remain unrepresented.

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 22^nd November, 2019, whereby, the respondents are alleged to have seized the alcohol 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 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 alcohol 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 22^nd November, 2019 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 HCGP for Respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that before conducting the impugned search and seizure, whereby, the alleged alcohol from the petitioner were seized, the respondents had not obtained any search warrant; so also, necessary reasons to believe had not been recorded in writing so as to dispense with the obtaining of search warrant as mandatorily required under Section 54 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT .

7. Under identical circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

In Criminal Petition No.10259/2021.

"ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.63/2021 pending on the file of principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, arising out of Crime No.14/2019- 20/2610SIE1/261010 registered by Karnataka Excise Department, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32, 34, 43(A) of KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965 (for short 'K.E. Act').

2. Heard the