- 1 -
CRL.P No. 102762 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102762 OF 2022 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1.
VINAYAK RAMDAS BIDIKAR
S/O. RAMDAS BIDIKAR, AGE.22 YEARS,
OCC. EMPLOYEE GOLD SHOP,
R/O. 38881/B, SAMBAJI ROAD,
KHASBAG SHAHAPUR,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT No.303, 3RD FLOOR,
LAKSHMI TOWER, NEAR RPD CROSS,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006.
2.
MADUMANGAL VITTHALDAS KALANTRI S/O.
VITTHALDAS KALANTRI, AGED 62 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.664, VITTALDEVI GALLI,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590003.
&ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2/PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH TILAKAWADI POLICE, BELAGAVI,
REP.BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.
&COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS
IN
CC
NO.1565/2022
REGISTERED
BY
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL
Digitally signed by
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 102762 of 2022
TILAKAWADI POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO.25/2022, BELAGAVI
CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC III, BELAGAVI CITY FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 32, 34 AND 38-A OF KARNATAKA
EXCISE ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
THEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN SO FAR
AS ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITON COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and
2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in
C.C. NO.1565/2022 on the file of J.M.F.C-III, Belagavi, for
the offences punishable under Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of
Karnataka Excise Act (for short <K.E Act).
It is the case of the petitioner that a case in
Crime No.25/2022 was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of K.E Act,
alleging that on 03.04.2022 at 8.10 a.m., on receipt of
credible
information
when
complainant
and
others
conducted raid and searched the house of petitioner No.1,
he found large quantity of liquor worth Rs.5,42,440/- and
- 3 -
on inquiry he disclosed that petitioner No.2 has stocked
the same. Thus, case was registered against petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 and ultimately charge sheet came to be filed
in C.C. No.1565/2022 which is being challenged in this
petition.
3.
Respondent has appeared through learned High
Court Government Pleader.
4.
During the course of arguments learned counsel
for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and
they have been falsely implicated. The search conducted
without a valid search warrant is vitiated. No valid reasons
are forthcoming as to why the search warrant was not
secured. In the absence of complying with the mandatory
requirement the entire proceedings are vitiated and prays
to allow the petition.
5.
On
the
other
hand
learned
High
Court
Government Pleader submitted that having regard to the
emergent situation the investing officer has conducted
search and later on submitted the report to the Court and
- 4 -
it is a matter for evidence to establish the said fact and
prays to reject the petition.
6.
Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7.
As evident from the complaint averments and
the documents placed on record, the search and seizure in
question are conducted in the residential premises of
petitioner No.1. According to the complainant the said
information was received at 7.15 a.m. and after securing
the witnesses and collecting material for the seizure, he
raided the said premises along with the staff at 8.15 a.m
and seized large quantity of liquor.
8.
Section 54 of the Excise Act, which deals with
power to search without warrant, provides that the said
power can be exercised only when the investigating officer
has reason to believe that there is likelihood of the
offender escaping or concealing the evidence of the
offence and after recording grounds of his belief may
proceed to conduct the raid or search without warrant. It
reads as follows:
- 5 -
54. Power to search without warrant:-Whenever
the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner
or any Police Officer not below the rank of an Officer-
in-charge of a Police Station or any Excise Officer not
below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to
believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33,
Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is
being or is likely to be, committed, and that a search
warrant cannot be obtained without affording the
offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing
evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the
grounds of his belief.
a)
at any time by day or by night enter and
search any place and seize anything found therein
which he has reason to believe to be liable to
confiscation under this Act; and
b)
detain and search and, if he thinks proper,
arrest any person found in such place whom he has
reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as
aforesaid.
9.
However, in the complaint no reasons are
forthcoming as to why the complainant failed to secure a
search
warrant.
Consequently
no
justification
is
forthcoming in the complaint as to the conducting of raid
without warrant. In the absence of complying with the
- 6 -
mandatory requirement, the entire proceedings are
vitiated.
10.
Thus from the above discussion, I hold that in
continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of
the process of
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.