ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 32(1), 38(A), and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1956, is before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 17.10.2023, the complainant received credible information over the phone that liquor purchased in the State of Goa was illegally brought into Karnataka and was being transported from Belgaum to Bagalkot. Acting on this information, the complainant intercepted the car, and upon inspection, it was found that the petitioner was transporting

15 liters of different types of liquor without obtaining a permit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State.

4. The petitioner/accused No.1 was the driver of the car at the time of the seizure of the liquor. At the time of the seizure, there were three other occupants traveling in the car. Initially, an FIR was registered against all four persons who were in the car. However, the charge sheet was filed only against accused No.1, primarily on the ground that he was the driver of the vehicle.

5. Admittedly, the car does not belong to accused No.1;

rather, it belongs to accused No.2. It was the responsibility of accused No.2 to provide an explanation for the unauthorized transportation of liquor. However, accused No.2 was dropped from the charge sheet, and the police committed an error in arraigning the petitioner as accused No.1 solely because he was the driver of the vehicle.

6. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 based on his voluntary statement, wherein it was allegedly stated that the owner of the car was not responsible for the unauthorized transportation of liquor. However, as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a voluntary statement made by the accused is inadmissible in law.

7. The offence alleged against the petitioner is cognizable, and before conducting the search, the police were required to either register an FIR or record the information in writing in the Station House Diary.

8. Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.

No.100653/2020, disposed of on 10.09.2020, has held in paragraphs 6 to 12 as follows:

6. Heard Shri Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jeevan J.Neeralagi, learned AGA for respondent. Perused the papers.

7. The submission of Shri Jeevan Neeralagi, learned AGA are very much practical submissions, which go to the root of the matter. But however what is required to be seen is that whether the law applicable has been followed or not, more particularly, when the matter relates to the criminal proceedings being initiated against the petitioners, for which they will be penaly prosecuted. It is but required in all matters that the procedure as prescribed is followed, this becomes more important when the criminal prosecution involved.

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 course of trial. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings in Crime No.40/2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, are required to be quashed and are therefore quashed.

9. This Court has been faced with these kind of similar matters on various occasions, wherein this Court has been constrained to quash the proceedings on account of avoidable procedural lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer or the SHO. The SHO could have avoided these kinds of lapses by merely registering the complaint and thereafter carrying out a raid, search and seizure. However, the submission of Shri Jeevan Neeralagi in this regard also requires due consideration in the sense that the