Vinayak S/O Narayansa Khode Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinayak S/O Narayansa Khode Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:244 CRL.P No. 100301 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100301 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

VINAYAK S/O. NARAYANSA KHODE AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. VALVEKAR GALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 020.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBLI, REP/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.21 07:28:35 +0530

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 08.09.2023 AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1/SOLE PETITIONER IN KESHWAPUR PS CRIME NO. 0036/2023 SUBSEQUENTLY AROSE IN CC NO. 3430/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED HEREIN PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965 AND U/SEC. 273 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:244 CRL.P No. 100301 of 2024

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offenses punishable under Sections 32, 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, Act, 1965) and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case of the prosecution is that, upon receiving credible information that the accused had stacked liquor unauthorizedly, a search was conducted. During the search, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of liquor that was unfit for human consumption and was being kept without a valid permit.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the conduct of the search and seizure, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 53 and 54 of the Act, 1965. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent – State argued that, in light of the exigency, the search was conducted without obtaining a warrant as stipulated in Section 53 of the Act. Hence, the respondent, after conducting the investigation, has rightly filed the charge sheet, and there is no need for interference.

After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:244 CRL.P No. 100301 of 2024

A perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that, upon receiving credible information that the petitioner had stacked liquor without a valid permit, a search was conducted on 12.04.2023. During the search, it was found that the petitioner was in possession of liquor without a valid permit, and some of the liquor was unfit for human consumption.

Section 53 of the Act, 1965 deals with the power of a Magistrate to issue a warrant. It states that if a Magistrate, upon receiving information and after such enquiry (if any) as he deems necessary, has reason to believe that an offense under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, he may issue a warrant.

Section 54 of the Act, 1965 deals with the power to search without a warrant and states that whenever the Excise Commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner, or any police officer not below the rank of an officer-in-charge of a police station, or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offense under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity to escape or conceal evidence of the offense, he may, after recording the grounds for his belief, at any time, by day or by night, enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe is liable to confiscation under this Act.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:244 CRL.P No. 100301 of 2024

In the instant case, the respondent – complainant, upon receiving the information, did not choose to obtain a warrant from the Magistrate. Section 53 of the Act provides the power to obtain a search warrant from the Magistrate, while Section 54 allows a search without a warrant in case of exigency by recording the grounds of belief for dispensation of obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate to prevent the offender from escaping or destroying evidence. Therefore, the search and seizure at the petitioner’s premises, without adhering to the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 53 and 54 of the Act, 1965, is illegal. Consequently, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition stands allowed.

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.3430/2023 pending on the file of the learned II JMFC, Hubballi, is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

JUDGE

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39