- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100580 OF 2024 (EXCISE) BETWEEN: MARWAR ROAD CARRIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, SHRI SURENDRA S/O. DAYARAM KHICHAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 3RD FLOOR, OFFICE NO.311, SADAR, PONDA- GOA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TTMC, SHANTI NAGAR, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ABAKARI BHAVANA, SECTOR NO.7, NAVANAGAR, BAGALAKOTE 587103. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE OFFICE, BAGALKOTE-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/07/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO. 102168/2024 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed calling in question the correctness of the order passed in the writ proceedings W.P.No.102168/2024, whereby the writ petition filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.01.2024 at Annexure-A came to be rejected. The authority had directed a release of the medical equipment upon furnishing of a bank guarantee and challenge to the same by filing of writ petition came to be rejected. The learned Single Judge by a detailed order had dismissed the writ petition by making certain observations. The relevant observation is at paragraph Nos.12 and 13 which reads as follows: “12. On carefully going through the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, it clearly indicates that any intoxicant materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of, or by means of which, such offence has been committed, is punishable and liable for confiscation. It also deals with any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation as contemplated under Section 43(3) of the Act. This aspect as the matter has been dealt with by co-ordinate bench of this Court squarely covering the present case on hand in the case of Finolex referred(supra). Where this Court dealing with similar situation did not find any good ground to interfere with the submissions so made therein, which is made in the present case as well. I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 petitioner that respondent No.3 does not have the authority or lacks jurisdiction for confiscation and seizure of the medicines (drugs), which was taken in the same vehicle as that of the intoxicant i.e., ‘whisky bottles’ which falls within the category of excisable articles, as the said intoxicant was taken in the same vehicle along with medicines(drugs) for commission of the offence and accordingly, the same has been confiscated by the respondent. 13. Therefore, the provisions of Section 43 of the Act is very clear and unambiguous with regard to intoxicant and materials or by means of which any such offence is committed and any receptacle, package or covering is liable for confiscation. Having considered the application filed by the petitioner for release of the medicines, the authorities passed an order for payment of bank guarantee, which is contemplated under Section 43-A sub Section (2) proviso of the Act, therefore such an order of production of bank guarantee from a Nationalized Bank equivalent to the value estimated is also proper and illegally justified. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed for confiscation and imposition of furnishing of bank guarantee for the value imposing such condition by the respondent authorities is not tainted with any illegality or arbitrariness as it is so contemplated under the Act and powers are vested with the authorities. Accordingly, the submissions made by the learned AGA is acceptable and I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no violation or bar of jurisdiction by the authorities to seize or confiscate the articles of medicines (drugs) which is not excisable article. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. (ii) It is needless to mention that petitioner is at liberty to invoke the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 appeal provision as contemplated under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that what was seized was the pharmaceutical goods found in the vehicle. It is pointed out that while imposing any condition for release of goods, the power to seize such goods would be a relevant factor to be taken note of. It is submitted that under Section 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’), the power to seize relates to articles/goods as mentioned under Section 43 (1), (2) and (3) and if the goods do not fall under such categories there is no power to seize. Section 43 of the Act reads as follows: “43. Liability of certain things to confiscation. - Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, the following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely :- (1) any intoxicant, material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of, or by means of which, such offence has been committed; (2) any intoxicant lawfully imported, transported, manufactured, had in possession or sold along with, or in addition to, any intoxicant liable to confiscation under clause (1); and (3) any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 (1) or clause (2), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering and any animal, vehicle, 1 [except the vehicles owned by the State Road Transport Undertaking or Corporation] [Inserted by Act 27 of 2007 w.e.f.29.08.2007] vessel, raft or other conveyance used for carrying the same; [Proviso x x x] [Omitted by Act 36 of 1987 w.e.f.10.08.1987” 3. It is noticed that the pharmaceutical goods admittedly do not come within the categories mentioned under Section 43 (1), (2) or (3) of the Act. Such aspect is not controverted by the learned AGA. By its very description, the power to seize is limited only to such articles which are connected with the offence. Noticing that the pharmaceutical goods are not directly or indirectly related to the commission of offence, prima facie there is no power to seize. If that were to be so, while releasing such goods, the question of imposing any conditions such as furnishing of bank guarantee does not arise. As such pharmaceutical goods are never stated to be required for the purpose of the proceedings under the Act. 4. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside as we notice that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on an assumption that the release is only temporary. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11970-DB WA No. 100580 of 2024 The approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. Consequently, the order dated 08.01.2020, insofar as imposing condition of furnishing bank guarantee is set aside. Accordingly, the order for release of goods made pursuant to the interim order stands affirmed. The indemnity bond furnished is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant. In light of the disposal of the writ appeal samples collected by the respondent-authorities relating to the pharmaceutical products are now directed to be returned to the petitioner. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE ABK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38