IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Karunakara Shetty, S/o Late Bujanga Shetty - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7448 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
Decided on : 04-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
“Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the order of issue of process for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, dated 23.08.2024 vide Annexure-D and consequently, quash the charge sheet vide Annexure-C filed by respondent herein in Shankaranarayana PS under PS Crime No.52/2024 against the accused No.2/petitioner herein in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 02.06.2024, respondent conducted raid behind the liquor shop of the petitioner being run under the name and style Laxmi Bar and Restaurant and seized liquor bottles, pursuant to which, respondent instituted proceedings in private complaint in Crime No.52/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965, which is currently pending in C.C.No.771/2024, which is assailed in the present petition.
4. It is submitted that the requirement of Section 54 of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , regarding recording of reasons to believe as to why to dispense with obtaining of warrant before the raid and non filing the police report, having not been complied with, impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shiva Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka – W.P.No.5879/2024 dated 21.01.2025.
5. The issue in controversy of this petition is directly and squarely covered to the judgment in the case of Shiva Kumar supra, which reads as under:
In this petition, the petitioner-accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C. No.993/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Hoskote, Bengaluru Rural District against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 12, 14, 32 and 38A of the KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT , 1965.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for 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 05th 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 05th 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 04th April,
K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka
Non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding search warrants in liquor-related cases leads to quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Procedural non-compliance regarding search warrant requirements under the Karnataka Excise Act invalidates arrest and seizure proceedings, necessitating the quashing of the related FIR.
Procedural non-compliance with search warrant requirements under the Karnataka Excise Act vitiates the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure under the Karnataka Excise Act leads to quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings.
A conviction based on statutory non-compliance regarding search and seizure procedures and the improper registration of an F.I.R. is void, necessitating acquittal of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.