Disposed

Mohan G T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.P/15249/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an excise FIR over seizure of vodka printed for sale in Goa only. Following an identical Coordinate Bench order permitting possession within prescribed quantity and requiring search warrants, the Court quashed the proceedings qua the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings/investigation in Crime No.17/2025-26/2004IE/200404 pending before Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, qua the petitioners, quashed.

Mohan G T Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15249 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAN G. T., S/O THIMMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT GUNDEGOWDANA KOPPALU , KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 01.

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

POORNACHANDRA G. J., S/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT GUNDEGOWDANA KOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 01.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K. C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HASSAN ZONAL NO.1, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C RAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.17/202526/2004IE/200404 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.17/2025-26/2004IE/200404 registered for offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32(1), 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

¶26

Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C., learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioners, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶32

issue revolves around the seizure of three liters of orange flavour and lemon flavour of vodka in the vehicle which was printed for sale in Goa State only and the vehicle being intercepted and caught, has led these petitioners into the web of crime. Learned counsel submits that in identical circumstance, the Coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.4419/2025, disposed on 08.09.2025, has held as follows:

¶33

"The petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC.No.1300/2024. Respondent No.2 registered a suo-moto complaint against the petitioner which led to the registration of crime in Cr.No.100/2023-24 for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short 'K.E. Act') and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Liqour Transit) Rules, 1985.

¶34

The petitioner, who is alleged to have been found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky, seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground that, even if the charge sheet materials are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules-1967”). The petitioner contends that the quantity possessed falls within the permissible limit prescribed under Rule 21 and, therefore, no case is made out against him. In support of his contention, the petitioner has also placed the relevant Rules on record. Rule 21 of the Rules-1967 expressly permits possession of brandy, whisky, gin, rum, and milk punch, excluding foreign liquor, up to 4.6 liters.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Pleader appearing for the State, and have perused the records carefully.

¶40

On a careful perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused solely on the allegation that he was found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky. The charge sheet proceeds on the premise that such possession constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules1967”) specifically permits possession of whisky, brandy, gin, rum, and milk punch, excluding foreign liquor, up to a quantity of 4.6 liters. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly in possession of only 2 liters of whisky, which is well within the prescribed permissible limit. Therefore, even if the charge sheet allegations are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly unsustainable, as there is no likelihood of conviction and the only possible outcome would be acquittal.

¶41

In the backdrop of the petitioner having been found in possession of liquor within the permissible limit, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. To secure the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, require to be exercised in the present case.

¶42

Apart from the above, the petitioner has also demonstrated that the proceedings are vitiated for noncompliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. These provisions lay down the statutory safeguards governing search, seizure, and arrest in excise-related offences. Section 53 mandates that, except in cases of emergency, the concerned authority, namely the Excise Inspector, is required to obtain a search warrant before conducting any search. Section 54 further prescribes the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

manner in which such searches and seizures are to be effected. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no search warrant was obtained prior to the alleged seizure of liquor from the petitioner. 7. This precise issue fell for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.10259/2021, where it was held that the mandate under Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act is mandatory in nature and any violation thereof would render the entire proceedings incurable in law. The Coordinate Bench categorically held that initiation of prosecution without compliance with the statutory requirement of a search warrant vitiates the very foundation of the case. In the light of the said authoritative pronouncement, it is clear that the present proceedings, initiated in CC.No.1300/2024, are vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards and are therefore liable to be quashed on this ground as well.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed ;

¶49

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.1300/2024 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, are hereby quashed.

¶50

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶51

In the light of the issue being identical, I deem it

¶52

appropriate to follow the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and quash the proceedings qua the petitioners.

¶53

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

[I] Criminal Petition is disposed .

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:3798 CRL.P No. 15249 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

[II] Proceedings/investigation in Crime No.17/2025-

¶60

26/2004IE/200404 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan, qua the petitioners, stand quashed.

¶61

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶62

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:SS

Mohan G T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan G T 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S Kushal Raj Vs Smt Shwetharani S B

Sri. Gururaj D K Vs the State of Karnataka

Doly Prabhat Maithy Vs State by

K S Jeevan Kishore Vs the State of Karnataka

Balasubramanian Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinath Vs State by Hunsur Town Police Station