Allowed

Ramachandraiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022CRL.P/2697/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheets and proceedings. The court held that the search was illegal as the investigating officer failed to record grounds of belief before proceeding without a warrant under Section 54 Karnataka Excise Act.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in CC No.171/2019 and entire proceedings pending before Civil Judge/JMFC, Sira were quashed.

Ramachandraiah Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2697 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS FROM CL-2 LICENSEE J.P. WINES KATHA NO.46, SY.NO.10 BUKKAPATNA SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 221. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.K. BHAT, SR.ADV. FOR SMT.SUDHA.D., ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE MADUGIRI SUB-DIVISON MADUGIRI-572 132 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 .. RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.RENUKARADHYA R.D., HCGP)

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, SIRA, IN C.C.NO.171/2019 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THERETO, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 173 CR.P.C. AND SECTION 56 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965, SECTION 36-A(1)(d) OF NDPS ACT, 1985.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner is a holder of the license in Form CL-2

¶17

and engaged in the business of retail sales of liquors at Bukkapatna in Sira Taluk of Tumkur District. Petitioner is challenging the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 32, 36(2) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶18

A case was registered in Crime

¶19

No.35/2017-18 against the petitioner alleging that on 10.04.2018, the respondent conducted search from

¶20

the premises of the petitioner alleging that the

¶21

¶22

petitioner was in unauthorized possession of liquor stocked in the premises adjacent to liquor shop, which is punishable under Sections 14, 32, 36(2) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed charge sheet in CC No.171/2019 before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶23

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the search conducted by the respondent is vitiated for non-compliance of Sections 53 and 54 of Karnataka Excise Act and as such the filing of charge sheet is not sustainable in law. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the case Sri Somnath Kerebail v the State of Karnataka, Through Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belgam District, reported in ILR 2004 Kar 527.

¶24

¶25

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that the search conducted by the respondent is in confirmity with Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. Hence, the charge sheet filed by the respondent is perfectly legal and as such the same does not warrant for any interference and sought to dismiss the petition.

¶26

I have considered the submission made by

¶27

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Perusal of the complaint registered by the respondent indicates that on credible information received from his superior Officer, the respondent conducted a search on the premises belonging to the petitioner and found that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of liquor in the house, which is located adjacent to the liquor shop. Section 53 of the Act empowers the Magistrates to issue a warrant for

¶29

¶30

search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed are kept or concealed and for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence.

¶31

It is pertinent to note that the division bench of this court in Sri Somnath Kerebail v the State of Karnataka, Through Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belgam District, reported in ILR 2004 Kar 527 has answered the question as to “Whether grounds of belief that an offence has been committed or being committed is sufficient compliance with Section 54 of the Act or in addition to it the seizing authority also has to mention his reasons for not obtaining search warrant before conducting search and seizure”. Section 54 of the Act

¶32

¶33

prescribes that the Officers designated therein can search without warrant at any time by day or by night any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under the Act and detain and search and if he thinks proper arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of the offences mentioned in the provision. The exercise of power to enter any place and to search, seize and arrest must be preceded by the Officer concerned recording the grounds of his belief that:

¶34

i) an offence u/ss 32, 33, 34, 36 & 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed at the place which he intends to enter or search and,

¶35

ii) that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording to the offender an opportunity to escape or of concealing evidence of the offence.

¶36

¶37

In the instant case, it is admitted that the respondent who searched the premises of the petitioner had not made any ground or then basis on which he had a reasonable belief that an offence under the Act, was being committed, before proceeding to search the premises and thus the provisions of Section 54 were not at all complied with. This, therefore, renders the entire search without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary, vitiates the criminal proceedings. Both Sections 53 and 54 contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill-founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment.

¶38

In view of the above, I am of the considered

¶39

view that the impugned charge sheet requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶42

¶43

(ii) The proceedings in CC No.171/2019 pending

¶44

on the file of civil judge and JMFC, Sira for offences punishable under Sections 14, 32, 36(2) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 are hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

snc

Ramachandraiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandraiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sathyendra Dhingra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Narayana Vs the Commissioner

The Bevinahalli Vs the Secretary Government of Karnataka

Sri Subramani Vs the State by Chikkaballapura Police Station

Shri H R Satishchandra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C R Chandran Vs Smt H K Sharadamba