This petition filed by accused No.2 under section 482

of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in crime

No.8/2020-21/3802SIE/380206 in C.C. No.2232/2021 for

the offences punishable under section 11, 14, 15, 32, 34,

38A and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act (hereinafter referred

to as K.E. Act), now pending on the file of V Additional

CMM, Bangalore.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the state.

3. The case of prosecution is that on 2.10.2020 at

12.50

p.m.

in

Thimmaiah

Road,

Bangalore

3

Basaveshwaranagar area, when the Excise officials found

that accused No.1 came on a two wheeler having some

bag in his vehicle. When it was searched, he was found to

be possession of 20 bottles of military liquors which was

15 litres, after which were seized by the officials under the

panchanama and during investigation it was found that

accused No.2 is the R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing

NO.KA KD 9256. Subsequently, the excise department

after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against

accused Nos.1 and 2 which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged

offence. As the petitioner No.1 is an ex army man and he

is entitled to purchase liquors from the military canteen for

his personal use, that was kept in his vehicle, which is

not meant for sale, the military liquor used to be supplied

by the defence canteen to the military personnel which is

permissible under the military rules and he has not

4

violated any order of government or committed any

offence under the K.E. Act.

5. Learned counsel further contended that accused

no.2 is only R.C. owner of the vehicle and he has not at all

possessed the liquor, because he is the owner of the

vehicle, he has been implicated as accused and without his

knowledge, the two wheeler vehicle has been taken by

accused No.1, who is father of accused No.2. Therefore,

absolutely there is no offence committed by the petitioner/

accused No.2. The learned counsel further contended that

the excise officials not followed the procedure and obtained

any warrant for search and seizure and therefore, the

criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. Hence, prayed

for quashing the same.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader objected the same and contended that the

petitioner not produced any bill for having purchased the

liquor form the military canteen and accused No.2 is R.C.

5

owner of the vehicle, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed

for dismissal of the petition.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

perused the records.

8. On perusal of the records, it reveals that as per

the complaint made by the excise officer the petitioner

accused No.1 said to be carried 20 bottles of different

liquor containing 15 liters and which is said to be a military

liquor is not for sale in open market. The same was seized

by the respondent department under the panchanama on

2.10.2020. As per Section 53 of Excise Act, before such

seizure,

the

warrant

shall

be

obtained

from

the

Magistrate, however, as per Section 54 of the Excise Act, if

any cause, the excise officer or police unable to obtain the

warrant they shall record the reason as there is every

possibility of the accused escape or conceal the evidence of

the offence. Then only, the respondent police or excise

officer can search and seize the liquors. Admittedly, the

respondent did not obtain any warrant from the magistrate

6

as required under Section 53 of the K.E. Act. However,

the excise officer recorded the reason stating that there is

no possibility for obtaining the warrant from the court.

Therefore, the said officer himself prepared the record of

reason on the spot, but on perusal of the seizure

panchanama dated 2.10.2020 at 12.15 p.m. which reveals

that panchanama was hand written by the one of the

officials. but record of reason is cyclostyled form and

computerized one. As