Shri Shyam Sundar K Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.3595 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR .K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O KESHVARJ .K CREDIT MANAGER IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY) OFFICE AT NO 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶9

PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O NANJANDE GOWDA BAR TENDER IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY) OFFICE AT NO 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA 3. RAJEEV KHANNA Location: High AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Court of S/O SATHYAPRAKASH KHANNA Karnataka DIRECTOR IN VIVANTA BY TAJ (LICENSE HOLDER COMPANY) OFFICE AT NO. 2275, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU-560 022.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN .J, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE POLICE NANDINI LAYOUT RANGE SUB-DIVISION - 02 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 096.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE FIR NO. 23/2024-25/3603IE/360308 DATED 30.01.2025 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 14, 15, 32, 36, 38(A) AND 43 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS (ANNEXURE-A).

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32, 36, 38(A), and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶24

The respondent registered the First Information Report stating that while on beat duty, the complainant, along with his staff, conducted an inspection of the premises of Taj Vivanta Hotel, which was issued a CL-6A

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶27

license to serve liquor to its customers. Based on credible information received, it was found that the petitioner had failed to maintain the account books as required under the terms of the license and the approved blueprint.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are cognizable in nature, and therefore, prior to conducting any investigation, the Excise Police were mandatorily required to either register an FIR or, in exigent circumstances, record the information received in the Station House Diary. It is further contended that the search and seizure was carried out without obtaining a warrant, in violation of the mandatory requirements under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

¶29

In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners had admittedly failed to maintain the account books and were not conducting the business in accordance with the approved blueprint. Therefore, the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant investigation. It was further submitted that the veracity of the allegations cannot be assessed at this preliminary stage and sought dismissal of the petition.

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶32

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following observations are made:

¶33

a. Admittedly, the offences alleged are cognizable in nature. Therefore, the respondent, having received credible information and prior to conducting investigation, was required to register an FIR or, in the event of exigency, record the reasons in writing in the Station House Diary as mandated under law.

¶34

b. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that an investigation conducted without registering an FIR, even on credible information, vitiates the entire proceedings. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was followed.

¶35

Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023, which corresponds to Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to writing and an FIR registered

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶37

before commencing the investigation. In the present case, the respondent has conducted investigation and effected search and seizure without registering the FIR or recording reasons in writing in the Station House Diary in case of urgency or apprehension of destruction of evidence or escape of the offender. Hence, the investigation conducted is vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 173 of the BNSS.

¶38

Furthermore, Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, empowers specified officers to conduct searches without warrant under certain circumstances. The provision reads as follows:

¶39

“54. Power to search without warrant.— Whenever the Excise Commissioner or 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 offence under Section 32, 33, 34, 36, or 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 of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief—

¶40

(a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶43

(b) 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 such offence as aforesaid.”

¶44

A bare reading of the above provision reveals that an officer may conduct a search without warrant only upon recording satisfaction that a warrant cannot be obtained without affording the accused an opportunity to escape or conceal evidence. In the present case, although it is alleged that the raid was conducted based on credible information, the Panchanama does not indicate that the officer heading the raid recorded any such satisfaction, nor is there any material to demonstrate compliance with the pre-conditions stipulated under Section 54.

¶45

It is a well-settled principle of law that recording of satisfaction by the head of the raid party is a sine qua non for conducting a warrantless search. In the absence of such recorded satisfaction, the entire raid and consequential search and seizure are vitiated. Therefore, the impugned investigation, having been conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of the BNSS and the Karnataka Excise Act, is liable to be quashed.

¶46

In view of the foregoing discussion, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:15718 WP No. 3595 of 2025

¶49

amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) The impugned First Information Report No.23/2024-25/3603IE/360308 dated 30.01.2025 registered by the respondent is hereby quashed.

¶53

iii) The respondent is hereby directed to release the articles/materials seized from the petitioners within a week from the date of receipt of this order.

¶54

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶55

NBM

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Shri Shyam Sundar K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shyam Sundar K v. 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

Sri Rasheed Saheb, Vs State by Mangaluru Women Police Station

Sri.Simon Devaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Hussainabba @ Hussain @ Suhel @ Ustad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S B Sampath Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Vibhishan Burman Vs State of Karnataka

Mohamed Afnas @ Afnas Vs State of Karnataka