IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100002 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SHRI. N. NAGESH KUMAR S/O. LATE H. NAGARAJAIAH AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. FDA RTO OFFICE BALLARI, R/O. PLOT NO 4, ASSESSMENT NO. 25/A, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE RANGE-I, HOSAPETE, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HOSAPETE-583201, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by RPTD BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR THROUGH LOKAYUKTA PS BALLARI, Location: HIGH MOHANKUMAR COURT OF BALLARI-583101, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.

B SHELAR KARNATAKA DHARWAD …RESPONDENTS BENCH Date: 2025.01.10

12:40:18 +0530 (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.

528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.05/2024-25/4508IE/450808 BEFORE HOSAPETE EXCISE RANGE-I POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 14, 15, 32 (1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1), and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, “Act, 1965”) is challenged in this petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1–

State.

3. Service of notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

4. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioner was found in possession of 5.250 liters of whisky, which exceeds the prescribed limit under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import, and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules, 1967”). Upon conducting a search of the petitioner’s house, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned quantity of whisky.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s family consists of three members. The respondent has alleged the seizure of 5.250 liters of whisky. However, under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1967, a person is permitted to possess up to 2.3 liters of whisky. When calculated for three family members, the total permissible quantity exceeds the seized amount. Therefore, the liquor allegedly seized from the petitioner’s house is within the permissible limit for the petitioner’s family.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State contended that the determination of whether the petitioner’s family possessed whisky within the prescribed limits is a matter that requires investigation. At this preliminary stage, there is no justification to interfere with the registration of the FIR.

7. After considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the following points are noted:

7. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 reads as under:

“21. Case where permit or licence is not required.- No permit or licence, under these rules, shall be required for the possession or transport of the following quantities of liquors.