Shri N Nagesh Kumar S/O Late H Nagarajaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100002 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. N. NAGESH KUMAR S/O. LATE H. NAGARAJAIAH AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. FDA RTO OFFICE BALLARI, R/O. PLOT NO 4, ASSESSMENT NO. 25/A, VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE RANGE-I, HOSAPETE, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HOSAPETE-583201, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH MOHANKUMAR COURT OF B SHELAR KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.10 12:40:18 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA PS BALLARI, BALLARI-583101, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.05/2024-25/4508IE/450808 BEFORE HOSAPETE EXCISE RANGE-I POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 14, 15, 32 (1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1), and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, “Act, 1965”) is challenged in this petition.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1– State.

¶24

Service of notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed

¶25

with.

¶26

The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioner was found in possession of 5.250 liters of whisky, which exceeds the prescribed limit under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import, and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules, 1967”). Upon conducting a search of the petitioner’s house, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned quantity of whisky.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s family consists of three members. The respondent has alleged the seizure of 5.250 liters of whisky. However, under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1967, a person is permitted to possess up to 2.3 liters of whisky. When calculated for three family members, the

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025

¶30

total permissible quantity exceeds the seized amount. Therefore, the liquor allegedly seized from the petitioner’s house is within the permissible limit for the petitioner’s family.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State contended that the determination of whether the petitioner’s family possessed whisky within the prescribed limits is a matter that requires investigation. At this preliminary stage, there is no justification to interfere with the registration of the FIR.

¶32

After considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the following points are noted:

¶33

Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 reads as under:

¶34

“21 . Case where permit or licence is not required.- No permit or licence, under these rules, shall be required for the possession or transport of the following quantities of liquors.

¶35

	Liquor	Quantity
1.	Toddy, in such areas of the State where the sale of toddy to public is allowed under sub- rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Tapping of Trees) Rules, 1991	2.5 Litres
2.	Xxxxx
3.	Xxxxx
4.	Country Beer	18.2 litres
5.	Brandy, Whisky, Gin, Rum, Milk-Punch and	2.3 litres

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025

¶38

such other liquors
manufactured in
Karnataka State or
manufactured in other
places in India and
imported to Karnataka
State, excluding
Foreign liquors
(imported)
6. Foreign liquors 9.1 litres
(imported)
7. Denatured Spirit 750
mililitres
8. Xxxx
9. Wines (including mass 9.0 litres
wine and sacramental
wine)
10. Fortified Wine 4.5 litres

¶39

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The Rules afore quoted clearly permit a person to hold 9.1 litre of liquor in his house. The members of the family of the petitioner, as explained in memorandum of petition are four in number. A four member family in a house, would be entitled to store liquor upto 36.4 litres. The possession of the petitioner is admittedly at 34.55 litres which is within the permissible limit even in terms of the Rules. Therefore, without going into any of the legal contentions that is advanced by the petitioner, it would suffice to allow the petition on the facts obtaining in the case at hand as admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the liquor which was permissible under Rule 21 of the Rules.

¶40

For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.31/2020-21 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 are hereby quashed.”

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025

¶43

Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import, and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (“Rules, 1967”) clearly stipulates that an individual is permitted to possess up to 2.3 liters of whisky. In the present case, the petitioner’s family comprises three members. Accordingly, each family member is entitled to possess 2.3 liters of whisky, amounting to a total permissible limit of 6.9 liters for the household.

¶44

The seizure of 5.250 liters of whisky from the petitioner’s residence is, therefore, well within the prescribed limit under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1967. Consequently, the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of the Rules, 1967. The continuation of the criminal investigation under these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The petition stands allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.5/202425/45018IE/450808 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶49

BKM

¶50

Ct:vh/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Shri N Nagesh Kumar S/O Late H Nagarajaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri N Nagesh Kumar S/O Late H Nagarajaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaraja S/O Nagajja Vs the State of Karnataka

Vithal S/O Babu Kesti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahesh S/O Ashok Kalale Vs the State of Karnataka

Iyagur Laxmana S/O Late Iyagar Mariyappa Vs Sri Shivamurthi Banakara S/O Ningappa

Sri. Sachin Shivaputrappa Chimmalagi Vs State of Karnataka

Bhagavant Ingalagi S/O Danappa Ingalagi Vs State of Karnataka