SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 775

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP

Non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding search warrants in liquor-related cases leads to quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 - Sections 32, 34, and 54 - Criminal proceedings for seizure of liquor without following statutory protocols - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions requires quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings - (Paras 6, 9, 10)

(B) Non-filing of independent police report prior to FIR registration renders subsequent actions void. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the legality of proceedings initiated against him for alleged liquor violations following a raid where proper preconditions for search were not met.

Findings of Court:
The court found the absence of required warrant or written reasons for bypassing warrant as fatal to the prosecution's case.

Issues: Whether the lack of compliance with Section 54 of the Act invalidates the FIR and charge sheet was central.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with mandatory search warrant provisions vitiates the proceedings; FIR validity hinges on adherence to statutory procedures.

Result: Criminal petitions allowed, proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top