SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35836

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RAMESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 148/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.148 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. RAMESH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.3343, 7TH CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, NEAR SRINIVASA TEMPLE, MANDYA-571 401.

2. K.T. SHANKAREGOWDA, S/O LATE. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2615, 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA-571 401.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. K. BHAT, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE MANDYA RANGE, MANDYA -571 401 REP BY: SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -01 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS-2023, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE CRIMINAL CASE UNDER FIR NO.49/2024- 25/2504 IE/250404 DATED 15/12/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT AND REPORTED TO THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND AS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA AS PER ANNEXURE-E SHOWING THE CRIME NO.49/2024 AND ALSO AS FIR 304/2024 INSOFOR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.11.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 10 seeking quashing of proceedings pending in Crime Nos.49/2024 and FIR No.304/24 for offence punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(f), 14, 15, 32 (1), 37, 38(A) and Section 43 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

2. Facts of the case are as under:

The respondent/complainant, who is serving in the cadre of Inspector of Excise, Mandya, while on routine patrolling duty within the limits of Mandya City, was proceeding in a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. KA-11-P-7215. During the said patrolling, at around 6:45 a.m., the Inspector received credible information regarding illegal storage and sale of spurious liquor in the premises of Kamadhenu Comforts Boarding and Lodging, situated along the Bangalore–Mysore Highway in Mandya District. Acting upon the said information, the Inspector, along with his team, immediately conducted a raid on the said establishment.

3. During the course of the raid, it was found that a substantial quantity of 385 fake liquor sachets branded as Amrut Silver Cup Brandy, along with various India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) tetra packs, were stored in Room Nos. 107 and 110 of the CL-7 licensed premises. The said stock was being illegally possessed and stored for the purpose of sale, in clear violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Consequently, the said materials were seized under a mahazar.

4. Further, on the very same day, acting upon the voluntary statement of the accused persons, the officials of the Excise Department conducted a follow- up search operation at about 5:00 p.m. at the residential premises belonging to one Smt. Swetha. On search of the said premises, the officials found and seized 9.820 litres of various brands of duplicate liquor, 38 litres of blend, 490 litres of spirit, and various implements and equipment used for manufacturing spurious liquor, including punching machines, sealing equipment, barrels, caps, and other materials commonly employed in the illicit preparation of liquor.

5. In view of these discoveries, a detailed complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional Magistrate, wherein the complainant specifically recorded that the officers were compelled to exercise their powers under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, which authorizes search and seizure without warrant in exigent circumstances, where delay may frustrate the object of the investigation.

6. In the captioned petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the very

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top