Sri Madev S/O Malla Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR, BHATKAL RANGE, BHATKAL, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580030.

¶23

SUB-INSPECTOR-2, EXCISE BHATAKAL RANGE, BHATKAL,

¶24

2 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

UTTARA KANNADA, DIST. 581320.

¶28

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581301.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.438 R/W. 442 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 PASSED IN ORDER NO.EXE/CRM/DTCR/729/2022-23 BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED IN CRL.APPL.NO.223/2023 BY PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K. KARWAR, AND RELEASE THE VEHICLE HONDA ACTIVA 125 HET VEHICLE NO.KA-47-W-7997 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

IN CRL.P. NO.100587 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

¶33

SRI. VASUDEV S/O. MALLA NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NO. 59, BELALKAND, GULMI ROAD, BHATKAL, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581320.

¶34

…PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SHRI SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR, BHATKAL RANGE, BHATKAL, REP. BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580030.

¶38

…RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶39

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.PC SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. AND QUASH ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.809/2023 (ARISING OUT OF EXCISE CRIME NO. 040/202223/3210SIE2/321010) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. BHATKAL FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A), 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶42

IN CRL. P. NO. 101108 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

¶43

SHRI MADEV S/O. MALLA NAIK, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NO.59, BELALKAND, KICHAPPA MAMANE, GULMI ROAD, BHATKAL, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581320.

¶44

…PETITIONER

¶45

(BY SHRI SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR BHATKAL RANGE, BHATKAL, R/BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD-580030.

¶48

…RESPONDENT

¶49

(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶50

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C AND QUASH ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 809/2023 (ARISING OUT OF EXCISE CRIME NO.040/2022-23/3210SIE2/321010) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. BHTKAL FOR AN OFFNCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A), 43 OF

¶51

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶54

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶56

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶57

Heard Sri. Suresh S. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶58

Criminal Petition No.101108/2025 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1, and Criminal Petition No.100587/2024 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.2 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.809/2023 pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Criminal *Revision Petition No.100189/2025 is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, wherein the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-47/W-7997 was ordered to be confiscated under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and for a direction to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

¶62

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

¶63

On 17.04.2023, at around 08:00 p.m., while the complainant (Excise Sub-Inspector-2, Bhatkal Range) was on patrolling duty on the Bhatkal–Sagar Road, he received credible information regarding the illegal transportation of liquor by an individual on a two-wheeler. Acting on this information, he proceeded to the Sagar–Gulmi Road and noticed an individual carrying boxes on a two-wheeler.

¶64

Inserted Vide Court

¶65

Order dated 18.07.2025 Sd/(VNTJ) Judge

¶66

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Upon seeing the Excise Inspector and his team, the person abandoned the vehicle and fled into the forest. Upon inspection of the vehicle, two cardboard boxes were found containing 48 tetra packs of 180 ml. each of Old Towerin Whisky, and 96 tetra packs of 90 ml. each of Haywards Cheers Whisky, totaling 192 tetra packs amounting to 25.92 liters of liquor and the two-wheeler bearing registration No.KA-47/W-7997. These articles and the vehicle were seized under a mahazar and a complaint was subsequently lodged.

¶69

During the investigation, on 15.07.2023, the Investigating Officer allegedly discovered the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said offence. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends

¶71

that the Investigating Officer failed to comply with Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred

¶72

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

to as ‘the Act’), by not obtaining a search warrant prior to conducting the raid. It is also contended that the vehicle is only source of livelihood of the petitioner and he was not involved in any repeated or grave offence. Since the alleged offences are cognizable, the investigation officer ought to have registered case first and shall proceed with investigation, but without prior registration as mandated under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., conduct of investigation is impermissible.

¶75

Per contra , the learned High Court Government

¶76

Pleader contended that Section 54 of the Act authorizes Excise Officials to conduct search without a warrant. He further relies on Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967, which allows an Authorized Officer to exercise powers under Sections 51 and 54 of the Act without a warrant. He asserts that the FIR was registered in accordance with Section 51 of the Act and that no interference is warranted. It is further contended that the vehicle was

¶77

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

involved in illegal activities and the confiscation was justified under Section 43(A) of the Act.

¶80

Upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the Excise Officer conducted the raid and seized the liquor from the motor vehicle allegedly belonging to the petitioner – accused No.2 without first registering an FIR, as mandated under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.

¶81

Section 54 of the Act provides that if a Police Officer has reason to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed and obtaining a search warrant would either allow the offender to escape or result in the loss of evidence, he may, after recording the reasons, proceed to search and seize without a warrant.

¶82

In the present case, the Excise Officer neither obtained a search warrant nor recorded any reasons for dispensing with the requirement of a search warrant before conducting the search. Such a search, therefore, is impermissible under law. Moreover, as the alleged

¶83

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

offences are cognizable in nature, the FIR ought to have been registered in strict compliance with the procedural requirements. The failure to do so renders the FIR and the ensuing criminal proceedings unsustainable in law.

¶86

Insofar as the order of confiscation is concerned, the same has been passed without due compliance with the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice and providing an effective opportunity of representation to the petitioner. Furthermore, the vehicle has remained in custody and no useful purpose would be served by retaining it in continued seizure, particularly when the trial is still pending. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶87

ORDER

¶88

i. The criminal petitions are allowed .

¶89

ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.809/2023 (arising out of Crime No.40/2022-23/3210SIE2/321010) pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge

¶90

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8011 CRL.RP No. 100189 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 100587 of 2024 CRL.P No. 101108 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

and JMFC, Bhatkal, insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

¶93

iii. The impugned order dated 16.10.2023 passed in No.EXE/CRM/DTCR/729/2022-23 by the Deputy Commissioner and also the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.223/2023 by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar are hereby set aside.

¶94

¶95

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶96

AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

¶97

Deleted Vide Court Order dated 18.07.2025 Sd/(VNTJ) Judge

Sri Madev S/O Malla Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madev S/O Malla Naik 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

Santosha S/O. Late Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni Vs State of Karnataka

Sundar Annasaheb Kamble Vs Sandeep S/O Tanai Ghodake

Sri Vasudev S/O Malla Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanta W/O Basalingayya Sanshimath Vs the State of Karnataka