Dismissed

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023CRL.P/101939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Karnataka Excise Act. The court held that the Excise Officer complied with Section 54 by recording reasons for not obtaining a search warrant, even though the text was handwritten in pre-printed blanks.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101939 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BAHUBALI S/O GANGAPPA TERADAL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HUNNUR VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.17 12:58:02 +0530

¶14

BASAVARAJ S. MUDASHI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EXCISE INSPECTOR, BAILHONGAL DIVISION, NEHRU NAGAR, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590016.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.45/2022-23/3410IC/341010 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 11,14,15,32(1), AND 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , BAILHONGAL AT BAILHONGAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’, for short) praying to quash the entire proceedings registered in Crime No.45/2022-23/3410IE/341010 for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KE Act’, for short) pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal, so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The 2^nd respondent received a credible

¶24

information regarding transportation of liquor meant for sale in Maharashtra. He went to the check point and found this petitioner in possession of liquor bottles in car bearing No.MH.09BX 8482, which were meant for sale only in Maharashtra State, were seized and a complaint is

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶26

¶27

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15 32(1) and 38(A) of the KE Act against this petitioner/accused No.1 and owner of the vehicle (accused No.2). The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings registered against him.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, as per the provisions contained under Section 54 of the KE Act, an officer/police officer has to obtain a warrant of search from the Magistrate under Section 53 of the KE Act and if the officials are unable to get warrant, they have to record the reasons in the dairy maintained by the officer as required under Section 54 of the KE Act. He further contended that the reasons recorded by respondent No.2 are filing up the blanks in a typed format by hand writing and it will not comply the provisions of Section 4 of the KE Act. He further contended that the learned Magistrate has to accept the reasons recorded by respondent No.2 for not obtaining the warrant. With this he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶31

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that respondent No.2 has recorded the reasons for not obtaining the search warrant. Even though it is filing up the blanks in a typed format, there is compliance of Section 54 of the KE Act. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, perused the material on record.

¶33

Respondent No.2 received a credible information of transportation of liquor. Respondent No.2 records the same as required under Section 54 of the KE Act and thereafter proceeded to the spot and seized the liquor found in the car of this petitioner/accused No.1 and seized the same. The said liquor is meant to be sold only in the State of Maharashtra. The said recording of the reasons by respondent No.2, as to why he has not obtained a search warrant from the Magistrate, is by filling up of matter in a printed/typed matter by hand writing. In the said recording,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶36

there is a mention that respondent No.2 had no sufficient time to obtain search warrant, as there was a chance of the accused being escaped from the clutches of respondent No.2. The said recording of the reasons is in compliance of Section 54 of the KE Act. In the absence of recording reasons, the search and registration of case is liable to be set aside as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 2 SCC 115 . In the case on hand, there is compliance of Section 54 of KE Act by respondent No.2. Merely because some matter is typed and some matter is in hand writing it cannot be said, at this stage, that it is not in compliance of Section 54 of the KE Act. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the said recording of reasons by respondent No.2 has to be approved by the Magistrate, but he failed to point out any provision of law in that regard. The learned Magistrate, on producing the accused along with the seized articles, has remanded the accused to judicial custody,

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13097 CRL.P No. 101939 of 2023

¶39

¶40

itself, shows that the Magistrate has approved the act of respondent No.2.

¶41

There are no grounds for quashing the

¶42

proceedings against the petitioner as prayed.

¶43

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

kmv ct:bck

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal v. the 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

Jubedabanu W/O Mardansab Vadavi Vs Mardansab S/O. Davalsab Vadavi

Kusum W/O Satyanarayana Wahi Vs the State of Karnataka

Iranna S/O Basayya Ganachari Vs State of Karnataka

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Mohammad Asif S/O. Abdul Rahim Chittewale Vs Rehana Begum @ Rehanabanu W/O Mohammad Asif Chittewale

Shri. Ningappa S/O Laxmappa Arakeri Vs Shri. Raju S/O Ashok Potadar