- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102448 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: AJIT KUMAR T. P. S/O. P. K. PARMESWARAN NAIR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 4/25, DHANYA ANAND NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY HOSPITAL, KALLEKULANGARA AKATHETHARA (PART), KALLEKULANGARA PALAKKAD, KERALA-678009. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANKIT DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARWAR SUB DIVISION POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT: DHARWAD-580011. 2. MADHU M. NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SUB INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, R/O. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, TQ. KARWAR, DIST. KARWAR, REP.BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.33/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32(1), 34, 38(A), 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II KARWAR AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Ankit R. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.33/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC II, Karwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 32(1), 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The de facto complainant lodged complaint alleging that, he had received a credible information at 10:00 p.m. while he was on patrolling, as to illegally transporting goan liquor, thus, at 10:30 p.m., he conducted raid on the petitioner’s car bearing registration No.KL-09/AU-1782, and seized 2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 Century Cashew Fenni bottles of 750 ml., 2 Royal Prince Cashew Fenni bottles, 1 smirnoff vodka bottle of 750 ml., 1 Mikhail Premium Vodka bottle of 750 ml., 2 Grand Reserve Whisky bottles of 750 ml., 6 breezer bottles of 275 ml., under seizure panchanama. Accordingly, the first informant lodged a complaint and this led to registration of an FIR and initiation of the investigation. Taking exception of the same, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer has not complied Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act and he has not obtained search warrant before conducting raid. Further, the offences alleged are cognizable and registration of FIR after conducting the investigation is impermissible, as specified under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act empowers the Excise Officer to search the car of the accused without obtaining search warrant. Further, the registration of the FIR is in compliance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 of Section 51 of the Karnataka Excise Act and the same does not warrant any interference. 6. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the Excise Officer has conducted raid and seized the liquor bottles from the possession of the petitioner – accused without registering First Information Report as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. in view of the ration laid down in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others1 7. Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, specifies that, if an Officer in-charge of a Police Station to search a place without a warrant if they have reason to believe an offence under the Act is being committed, and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may after recording the grounds of his belief. 8. In the instant case, the Excise Officer without search warrant, or without recording proper reasons for 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 dispensing with in obtaining search warrant, has intercepted the car and conducted raid on the car of the accused, which is impermissible. Admittedly, the alleged offences are cognizable in nature. Therefore, registration of First Information Report is in violation of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of G. Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka and another2 has observed that without registering First Information Report, commencement of investigation is in violation of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C. No.33/2024 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC II, Karwar, for 2 W.P. No.20816/2023 decided on 31.01.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8888 CRL.P No. 102448 of 2025 the offences punishable under Sections 32(1), 34, 38(A) and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 is hereby quashed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 2 sl no.: 30