Allowed¶66

Mr Chukaru v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.RP/670/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Excise Act 1965 Sections 53 & 54; power to search without warrant; mandatory recording of grounds of belief; non-compliance vitiates search, seizure and conviction; illicit liquor possession/manufacture, five litres, Sullia, Dakshina Kannada; revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC; acquittal; K.L. Subbayya AIR 1979 SC 711; Babu Naika Crl.RP.No.52/2014; Kullegowda Crl.RP.No.597/2014; fine Rs.10,000 refund; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; order dated 22.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition allowed; the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in CC No.443/2014 dated 10.02.2015 and its confirmation in Crl.A.No.77/2015 dated 04.05.2017 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences; bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled; fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded to the petitioner. ¶66

Mr Chukaru Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether failure to comply with Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 — specifically the mandatory recording of grounds of belief before a search without warrant — vitiates the seizure and the conviction based on it, rendering the courts below unjustified in convicting the petitioner.

¶36

Court's answer

Recording of the grounds of belief that the offender is likely to escape or conceal evidence of the offence is mandatory before proceeding with a search without warrant under Section 54; non-compliance of such a requirement would render the search or seizure without warrant void, and thereby the entire proceedings get vitiated.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

Compliance of Sections 53 & 54 of the Act not having been shown in the present case, the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences; the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.

¶13

Key takeaways

The learned HCGP, though opposing the petition, was not in a position to show that there was compliance of Sections 53 & 54 of the Act in the present case.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:3941), CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017, oral order dated 22.01.2026: Accused convicted under Sections 13(1)(f) and 34, Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (simple imprisonment one year, fine Rs.10,000/-, default simple imprisonment three months), with conviction confirmed in Crl.A.No.77/2015, sought setting aside via revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC. Held: recording of the grounds of belief that the offender is likely to escape or conceal evidence of the offence is mandatory before a search without warrant under Section 54; non-compliance renders the search or seizure void and vitiates the entire proceedings (law laid down in K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 711; similar views taken in Babu Naika, Crl.RP.No.52/2014, and Kullegowda, Crl.RP.No.597/2014). The HCGP was unable to show compliance of Sections 53 & 54. Impugned judgments set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; fine, if deposited, refundable.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 670 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. CHUKARU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE BHATYA MUGERA R/AT BAIKODI MOOLE HOUSE MANDEKOLU VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK, D.K. - 574 251.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KETHAN KUMAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPECIAL POLICE STATION EXECISE ENFORCEMENT AND LOTTERY PROHIBITION SPECIAL SQUAD, BANDAR, MANGALURU REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.77/2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALORE CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE DATED 10.02.2015 IN C.C.NO.443/2014.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused is before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC No.443/2014 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, dated 10.02.2015 which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.77/2015 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, by judgment and order dated 04.05.2017.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a)(f), 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act') and was tried for the said offences in CC No.443/2014. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.05.2011 at about 09.20 a. m., based on credible information received, police attached to Special Police Station Excise Enforcement and Lottery Prohibition Special Squad, Mangaluru, had travelled to Baikadi Moole of Mandeklu

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Village in Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District along with panch witnesses and had apprehended the petitioner, who was in possession of five litres of illicit liquor in a can, which he allegedly had manufactured. The seized contraband was subjected to panchanama and thereafter, accused and the contraband were brought to the police station and FIR was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.32/2011 for the aforesaid offences. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against him.

¶29

Petitioner who had appeared before the Trial Court in response to the summons received by him in CC.No.443/2014, had claimed to be tried.

¶30

The prosecution in order to prove its charges against the petitioner, had examined eight charge-sheet witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked seven documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7. One material object was marked as MO-1. No oral or documentary evidence was led on behalf of the defence.

¶31

The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

under Section 13(1)(f) and Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.77/2015 by the Court of Prl. Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2017. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove compliance of Sections 53 & 54 of the Act in the present case, which is mandatory. Therefore, the entire seizure gets vitiated. The courts below were therefore not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. However, he was not in a position to show that there is compliance of Sections 53 & 54 of the Act in the present case.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sections 53 & 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965,

¶42

reads as under:

¶43

" 53. Power of Magistrate to issue a warrant.-

¶44

If a Magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36, or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant,-

¶45

(a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed; and

¶46

(b) for the arrest of any person who he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence.

¶47

54. Power to search without warrant.-

¶48

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, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may, after recording the grounds of his belief-

¶53

(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 the Act, and

¶54

(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."

¶55

In the present case, according to the prosecution, based on credible information received on 24.05.2011 at about 9.20 a.m., the special squad from Mangaluru had traveled to Sullia which is at a distance of about 80 Kms. from Mangaluru, and had apprehended the accused who allegedly was in possession of five litres of illicit liquor, which was found in a Can. It is also alleged that petitioner had manufactured the illicit liquor which was in his possession.

¶56

Section 53 of the Act provides for power of Magistrate to issue a warrant and Section 54 of the Act provides for power to search without warrant. Sections 53 & 54 of the Act would go

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

to show that the Excise Officer has to obtain a warrant if he wants to raid a particular place, or arrest a person who he has reason to believe to have been, or likely to be engaged in the commission of any offence under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36 or 37 of the Act. Section 54 provides that Excise Officer need not obtain the warrant as provided under Section 53 in case of emergency, where he has got a reasonable belief that the offender is likely to escape or conceal the evidence of the offence and in such an event, after recording reasons for his belief, he can proceed further even without obtaining a warrant.

¶61

However, recording of the grounds of belief to arrive at a conclusion that the offender is likely to escape or conceal evidence of the offence, is mandatory and non-compliance of such a requirement would render search or seizure without warrant void, and thereby, the entire proceedings gets vitiated. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.L.SUBBAYYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - AIR 1979 SC 711 , wherein it is held that noncompliance of Section 54 would render the entire search

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

without jurisdiction and as a logical corollary, vitiates the conviction. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Crl.RP.No.52/2014 disposed of on 09.03.2020 in the case of BABU NAIKA & OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA and also in the Crl.RP.No.597/2014 disposed of on 28.02.2023 in the case of KULLEGOWDA & OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA .

¶65

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offences. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶66

This criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in CC.No.443/2014 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, dated 10.02.2015, which is confirmed in Crl.A.No.77/2015 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, by judgment and order dated 04.05.2017, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge-sheeted offences. Bail bonds, if any of the petitioner, stands cancelled.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:3941 CRL.RP No. 670 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Fine amount, if any deposited, shall be refunded to the

¶71

petitioner.

¶72

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶73