IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15249 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. MOHAN G. T., S/O THIMMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT GUNDEGOWDANA KOPPALU , KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 01.

2. POORNACHANDRA G. J., S/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, Digitally R/AT GUNDEGOWDANA KOPPALU, signed by KASABA HOBLI, NAGAVENI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 01.

Location:

High Court …PETITIONERS of Karnataka (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HASSAN ZONAL NO.1, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS)

CR.P.C RAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.17/2025- 26/2004IE/200404 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.17/2025-26/2004IE/200404 registered for offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

2. Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue revolves around the seizure of three liters of orange flavour and lemon flavour of vodka in the vehicle which was printed for sale in Goa State only and the vehicle being intercepted and caught, has led these petitioners into the web of crime. Learned counsel submits that in identical circumstance, the Coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.4419/2025, disposed on 08.09.2025, has held as follows:

"The petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC.No.1300/2024. Respondent No.2 registered a suo-moto complaint against the petitioner which led to the registration of crime in Cr.No.100/2023-24 for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short 'K.E. Act') and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Liqour Transit) Rules, 1985.

2. The petitioner, who is alleged to have been found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky, seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground that, even if the charge sheet materials are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules-1967”). The petitioner contends that the quantity possessed falls within the permissible limit prescribed under Rule 21 and, therefore, no case is made out against him. In support of his contention, the petitioner has also placed the relevant Rules on record. Rule 21 of the Rules-1967 expressly permits possession of brandy, whisky, gin, rum, and milk punch, excluding foreign liquor, up to 4.6 liters.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, and have perused the records carefully.

4. On a careful perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused solely on the allegation that he was found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky. The charge sheet proceeds on the premise that such possession constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules