Procedural non-compliance regarding search warrant requirements under the Karnataka Excise Act invalidates arrest and seizure proceedings, necessitating the quashing of the related FIR.

ORDER :

1. In this petition, petitioner-accused No.1 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.35132/2023 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11 , 14, 32, 38A and 43 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.

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 11.04.2023, whereby, the respondent is alleged to have seized the liquor bottles from the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the respondent 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 11.04.2023 and drawing up a mahazar, a separate report in this regard was not filed by the respondent 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 , 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 Criminal Petition No. 10259 of 2021 disposed of on 22^nd March 2024.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that 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 liquor bottles from the petitioner were seized, the respondent 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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

3. The case of the complainant is that he received information from one R. Somashekhar, Assistant Horticulture Officer, HD Kote Taluk SST-2, who was wor