- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8311 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VINAY N S/O G.H.NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.51, MATHRU MANDIRA, PRASHANTH NAGARA, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RACHITA NANAIAH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, GOWRIBIDANUR RANGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR. REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MANJUNATHA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ABAKARI INSPECTOR, ABAKARI INSPECTOR OFFICER, GOWRIBIDANUR ZONE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN C.C.NO.357/2021 REGISTERED BY THE GOWRIBIDANUR EXCISE RANGE POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR/1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 21(1) AND 32 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT CONSEQUENTLY THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ACQUITTING THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, in CC No.357/2021 arising out of FIR No.80/2019-20/12051E/120505 dated 25.3.2020, registered by the Inspector of Excise, Gowribidanur Range, Gowribidanur, Chikkaballapura District, for offence punishable under Section 21(1) and 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 2. In brief, it is alleged that, inspite of prohibition of sale of liquor during COVID-19 pandemic from 21.3.2020 to 31.3.2020, the accused were selling liquor by keeping open one Nagajyothi Wine Store in Gowribiddanur Taluk and thereby committed the aforementioned offence. 3. A suo moto complaint was lodged by the Inspector of Excise, Gowribidanur Range, Gowribidanur, alleging that on 24.3.2020 at about 5.45 p.m., when he was on rounds, he received a credible information that liquor was being sold in Nagajyothi Wines and therefore, along with other officials and panchas, he went to the said wine shop, wherein accused No.1 by name Prakash on seeing them tried to escape, but he was caught and five boxes containing 1400.52 liters of liquor and 354.385 liters of beer were seized. 4. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Section 21(1) and 32 of the Karnataka Excise Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 5. It is submitted that accused No.1 is no more. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2. He is said to be the license holder of the shop from where the liquor was seized. 6. According to prosecution, the accused have violated Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, punishable under Section 32 of the said Act. 7. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal as it is a settled legal position that without registering the FIR, seizure and investigation could not have been conducted. He has relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5802/2016 decided on 22.9.2016. 8. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the Inspector of Excise proceeded to the spot i.e., Nagajyothi Wine store belonging to the petitioner/accused No.2, on receiving a credible information that liquor was being sold in spite of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 restrictions imposed in view of COVID-19 pandemic. He seized the liquor bottles under a mahazar and arrested accused No.1. It is not in dispute that, only after conducting the seizure mahazar and arrest, the FIR was registered on the next day i.e., 25.3.2020. 9. Section 21 of the Karnataka Excise Act contemplates that the District Magistrate may, by notice in writing to the licensee require that any shop in which any intoxicant is sold shall be closed at such times and for such period as he may think necessary for the preservation of the public peace or the prevention of the spreading of any infectious diseases. Firstly, it is nowhere stated that such a notice was issued to the license holder of the wine shop. Secondly, nothing is placed on record to show that the credible information received was recorded anywhere. Raid was conducted without an FIR being registered. 10. In the above noted decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court has held that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 question of preliminary investigation or inquiry without registering FIR or any such raid conducted without registering FIR would be illegal and would vitiate the proceedings. 11. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under section 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Section 53 requires that, prior to any search or arrest, a Magistrate must issue a warrant based on credible information and preliminary inquiry. There is no material on record to show that a warrant was obtained. Further, section 54 permits search and arrest without a warrant only under exceptional circumstances where delay would result in the escape of the offender or destruction of evidence. Crucially, the section mandates that the officer must record reasons for such belief in writing prior to the action. In the instant case, no such reasons are forthcoming. The failure to comply with the requirements of section 53 and 54 of the Act, renders the search and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 seizure procedurally unlawful. Consequently, the action of the authorities is vitiated and any evidence obtained as a result is liable to be excluded from consideration. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka (1979) SCC 115 has held that search conducted by an officer without prior recording of the grounds for his belief that an offence under the Act was likely or being committed, is illegal. The Apex Court held, Section 53 and 54 of the Act contain valuable safeguards for the liberty of the citizen in order to protect them from ill founded or frivolous prosecution or harassment and non compliance of the provisions would render the search completely without jurisdiction. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16746 CRL.P No. 8311 of 2023 ii. The entire proceedings pending in CC No.357/2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, are quashed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:ar