- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11499 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O LATE ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT RAMAGANAPARTHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 562 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PERESANDRA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. S.P.P.) *** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT IN C.C.NO.294/2023 AT Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE COGNIZANCE TAKEN AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSON AND ISSUED SUMMON TO ACCUSED PERSON BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN C.C.NO.294/2023 AT ANNEXURE D, ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the charge sheet filed by the respondent Police against her for the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Excise Act') in C.C.No.294/2023 at Annexure C and consequently to set aside the cognizance taken against the petitioner in C.C.No.294/2023 at Annexure D. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the charge sheet in order to point out that the same was submitted/filed by the Head Constable, who is below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Excise or Inspector of Excise or any other Excise Officer below such rank as contemplated under Section 55 of the Excise Act, and consequently, the Head Constable who conducted the investigation did not have power and was not competent or entitled to conduct the investigation which ought to have been conducted by an Officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Excise or Sub-Inspector of Excise and as such, the impugned charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Guruva Poojari reported in ILR 1975 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 Kar.1616 and State of Karnataka Vs. Santhappa Poojary reported in 1975(2) Kar.L.J. Jr.38 Sh.N.75. 4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State would submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the submissions, it would be necessary to refer to Section 55 of the Excise Act, which reads as under: "55. Power of Excise Officers in matters of investigation.- (1) Any Inspector of Excise or a Sub-Inspector of Excise or any Excise Officer not below such rank and within such specified area as the State Government may, by Notification prescribe, may as regards offences under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34 [Section 35, Section 36, Section 37, Section 38 or Section 38-A] exercise powers conferred on an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station by the provisions of the[Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 Provided that any such power shall be subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as the State Government may prescribe. (2) For the purposes of Section 156 of the said Code, the area in regard to which an [Inspector of Excise or a Sub-Inspector of Excise or an Excise Officer] is empowered under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a Police Station and such officer shall be deemed to be the Officer-in-charge of such station. 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision is sufficient to come to the conclusion that it is only an Officer of the rank of the Sub-Inspector/Inspector of Excise and not below the said rank who would be entitled to investigate into the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Excise Act. 7. In the instant case, a perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded which form part and parcel of the charge sheet would indicate that the investigation has been done by a Head Constable one Sri. Shankara Reddy K.S. (HC-103), who is indisputably a Head Constable, well - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:920 CRL.P No. 11499 of 2023 below the rank of a Sub-Inspector/Inspector of Excise, as mandatorily required under Section 55 of the Excise Act and consequently, the entire investigation conducted by him and all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge sheet would necessarily be contrary to Section 55 of the Excise Act and without any jurisdiction or authority of law, warranting interference in the present petition. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.294/2023 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur, qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV*/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22