The Magistrate's failure to observe required procedural compliance prior to taking cognizance of offences under the Disaster Management Act invalidates the proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

These petitions are preferred by accused No.2 in all the crimes, challenging different crimes registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act , 1965, Section 188 of the IPC as also the offences under Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act , 2005.

2. Heard Sri B.N.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

On 12.05.2021 claiming to have received certain information that accused No.1 is selling liquor at Bommalapura without obtaining valid licence and had recovered 92 tetra packets containing 90ml of whiskey from accused No.1. Alleging that the said liquor was purchased from the petitioner's wine store and was selling the same at higher price. Crimes come to be registered against the owner of the SLV Wine Store and petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Post investigation, the police file their charge sheets in all the crimes registered against the petitioner and other accused for the afore-quoted offences. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act along with other offences as afore-quoted. The petitioner, common in all the petitions is challenging the charge sheet so filed against him in the subject petitions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the search and seizure of liquor can only happen at the hands of the police attached to the Excise Department and not by the regular police. Merely because, the offence under Section 188 of the IPC or Section 51 (b) of the Disaster Management Act is invoked, it would not give any power to the regular police to search and seize the liquor. Apart from that fact, learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 has valid license to sell liquor. If accused No.1 has purchased it and is selling them on higher prices, it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in the offences. If the petitioner did not have valid license, it was a circumstance altogether different. Learned counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings in all the petitions.

5. Per contra, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State would vehemently refute the submissions contending that these six cases involve close to 298 packets of 90ml liquor/whiskey. Accused No.1 was caught selling whiskey/liquor procured from the store’s of accused No.2. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. With regard to the jurisdictional police having jurisdiction or otherwise, to search and seize the liquor, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the position of law.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is accused No.2, holder of CL2 license and running a wine shop in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wine Store. Accused No.1 is said to have procured valid license. The issue is not with regard to accused No.2 , the present petitioner having valid license or otherwise.

8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a license holder and selling liquor in the aforesaid shop. Accused No.1 buys liquor from the shop of petitioner - accused No.2 during COVID and sells the said liquor in tetra packs, which he has procured in tetra packs on higher prices. He was caught by the regular police and reveale