Validity of legal procedures, requiring adherence to statutory mandates for searches and FIR registration in criminal investigations.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.762 of 2023 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramdurg, for the offences punishable under Sections 14 , 15, 32(1) and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act , 1965 (for short, 'Act').

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 9-5-2023 at about 1:00 p.m., respondent No.2, Sri Basavaraj S. Kittur, Excise Inspector, Ramdurg, received credible information about storage of liquor bottles in the house of the petitioner without any permission. Hence, he secured his sub-staff and panchas and went to the house of the petitioner situated at Sureban Road near Basaveshwara Circle, Ramdurg, conducted raid and secured 27 tetra packets (180 ml.

each) of original choice Whiskey, same were stored without any license or permission. Thus, the de facto complainant seized the same under seizure panchanama and thereafter, he lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the Station House Officer registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2022-23/34081E/340808, which led to registration of First Information Report and investigation.

3. Heard Sri Yash Nadakarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the Investigating Officer has not complied with Sections 53 and 54 of the Act and he has not obtained search warrant before conducting raid on the house of the accused. Further, the offences alleged are cognizable and registration of First Information Report, after conducting investigation is impermissible as specified under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents' submits that Section 54 of the Act empowers the Excise Officer to search the house of the accused without obtaining search warrant and the first informant has assigned reasons before conducting raid on the house of the accused. She further submits that Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967, specifies that any Authorised Officer may exercise the powers of entry and inspection under Sections 51 and 54 of the Act without any warrant. Hence, she submits that registration of First Information Report is in compliance of Section 51 of the Act and the same does not warrant any interference.

6. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the de facto complainant/Excise Inspector conducted raid and seized the liquor bottles from the house of the accused without registering First Information Report as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

7. In this case, the first informant received information on 9-5-2023 at 1:00 p.m., conducted raid at 1:45 p.m., and registered First Information Report at

2:30 p.m.

8. Section 54 of the Act allows an Officer in-charge of a Police Station to search a place without a warrant if they have reason to believe an offense under the Act is being committed, and obtaining a warrant would jeopardize the investigation by allowing the offender to escape or destroy evidence. The Officer must record the reasons for their belief before conducting the search and seizure.

9. In the instant case, the Excise Officer without search warrant, or without recording proper reasons for dispensing with in obtaining search warrant, has conducted raid on the house of the accused, which is impermissible. Admittedly, the alleged