Criminal proceedings under the Karnataka Excise Act are liable to be quashed if the investigation suffers from procedural violations, particularly the failure to comply with mandatory search and seizure provisions under Sections 53 and 54 of the Act.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS2. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 17167/2025 ARISING OUT OF CHARGESHEET FILED IN CRIME NO.45/2023-24/380SIE/380308, DATED 02.06.2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11, 14, 32, 38(A) AND 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AND COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 TAKEN BY THE LEARNED XXIV ACJM, BENGALURU, CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOF AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2. (VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND C) 3. ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Shesha Karthik M. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.17167/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 11 , 14, 32, 38(A) & 43 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of PARASHURAM Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA¹CRL.P.No.103080/2023 disposed on 21.01.2025, has held as follows:

"1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.3458 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 14 , 15, 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Manoj N. Bikkannavar appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA Shri Sharad V. Magadum appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

On a suo motu complaint so registered on 22.04.2023 at about 12:00 p.m., the petitioner caught having 175 tetra packs each of 90 m.l. whisky. The same was seized from the hands of the petitioner. The seizure was then reported and a crime came to be registered in crime No.84 of 2022. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the matter is pending as C.C. No.3458 of 2023. Filing of the charge sheet and summons so issued is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what was seized from the hands of the petitioner was 175 tetra packs but what was sent to the FSL for testing was 26 tetra packs, and therefore he should be made liable for penal consequences only for 26 tetra packs of 90 m.l. whisky. If 26 tetra packs are considered it would amount to 2.3 liters which is well within the limit that the petitioner can carry. Learned counsel would apart from contending that there is gross procedural violation would seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. Learned AGA on instructions would submit that 175 tetra packs were seized and therefore the petitioner must not be let to go scot free as he has violated the provisions of the Act. To a pointed query of the Court as to why only 26 tetra packs were sent to FSL and what happened to the remaining 149 tetra packs, there is no answer. Therefore 149 tetra packs of 90 m.l. whisky have vanished. The issue now would be whether the petitioner should be permitted to be prosecuted for an offence of holding 26 tetra pack of 90 m.l. of whiskey which comes to about 2.3 liters, which is well within the permissible limits of carrying. The issue need not detain this Court for longer dwell deep into the matter. In an identical issue projected before the Coordinate Bench. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows:

“8. On perusal of the records, it