Seizure of evidence without prior FIR registration is generally impermissible; however, exigent circumstances may justify immediate action by law enforcement officers.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR registered by the Exercise Police Station, Athani in No.106/2023- 24/35SIE/350307 registered for offence punishable under Sections 10 , 13, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Exercise Act.

2. The brief facts as narrated in the complaint are that:

On 29.04.2024 at about 6:00 PM, the Excise Inspector were on patrolling duty during Election and he received an information that one person was carrying Shendi on a two wheeler vehicle bearing Maharashtra passing. He proceeded to the spot and found a person coming on a motorcycle having Maharashtra registration and stopped and he was possessing 10 Litres of Shendi and it was seized under a Mahazar and filed a complaint and on that basis a case came to be registered for offences as noted supra. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the FIR has sought for quashing of the FIR.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the Exercise Inspector on receipt of credible information ought to have registered the FIR and thereafter proceeded to the spot and seized the Shendi etc. He further submits that the Excise Inspector without registering the FIR has seized the Shendi from possession of the accused No.1. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate of this Court in the case of Sarvesh S/o. Hanamant Sanasidda Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Crl.P. No.100653/2020 C/w. Crl.P.No.100979/2020 decided on 10.09.2020. With this, he prayed for quashing of the FIR.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent would contend that the Excise Inspector was on a patrolling duty, at that time, he has received a credible information and proceeded to the spot and seized Shendi from the possession of the petitioner who was carrying it on his two wheeler. As the Excise Inspector was on patrolling duty, as he was not present in his office or Police Station, has not registered the FIR and therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the case of the petitioner. With this he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State, perused the FIR, complaint and other documents placed on record.

7. On 29.04.2024 at about 6 PM when the Exercise Sub-Inspector was on patrolling duty during the Lok Sabha Election – 2024, he received a credible information from one unknown person that one person is proceeding from Maharashtra Sindunarhe towards Kollhalli village carrying Shendi on his two wheeler. Immediately, the said Excise Sub-Inspector went to the spot along with two Panchas and stopped the two wheeler which was proceeding towards Kollhalli village, the rider of the said motorcycle on seeing them tried to take U-turn, at that time, they caught hold of him and found that there was a plastic Can on the petrol tank of the said two wheeler and they found 10 Litres of Shendi in it and they seized the same under a Mahazar and thereafter, the Excise Inspector has filed a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 10 , 13, 32(1), 38(A), 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 .

8. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:

“8. Admittedly when the raid, search and seizure was carried out prior to the registration of FIR, the same is impermissible. Any seizure made cannot be relied upon in evidence because the said seizure is tainted. In view thereof, the continuance of the proceedings itself would yield no result, since the very basis of the complaint being seizure of incriminating articles cannot be relied upon during the cou