- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:82 CRL.P No. 102879 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102879 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: B. NAGAVENI W/O B. NAGARAJA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NO.327 DURUGAMMA SEDA BHAVI BADAVANE, SHIVAPURA KUDLIGI, DISTRICT BALLARI-583 135. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANDUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BALLARI-583 140, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.83/2022 ON CHORANURU P.S. THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SANDUR, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.09 12:51:11 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:82 CRL.P No. 102879 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, and 14 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act’), has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on credible information, the police conducted a raid and found that accused No.1 was transporting liquor unauthorisedly for sale to third parties. Upon search, it was discovered that accused No.1 was in possession of liquor beyond the prescribed limit and without a valid licence. During interrogation, accused No.1 allegedly confessed that the liquor in his possession had been purchased from accused No.2. The sole allegation against accused No.2 is that he sold liquor to accused No.1, who was subsequently found in unauthorised possession of the same. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:82 CRL.P No. 102879 of 2023 4. Accused No.1, who was apprehended, gave a voluntary statement confessing that the seized liquor had been purchased from accused No.2. However, accused No.2 is a holder of a valid CL-7 licence, authorizing him to vend Indian and foreign liquor. 5. Section 14 of the Act prescribes the maximum quantity of liquor that an individual can possess. Since accused No.2 is licensed to sell liquor, the provisions of Section 14 are not applicable to him. 6. Section 32 of the Act penalizes illegal import, export, transport, manufacture, collection, or possession of intoxicants in contravention of the Act, its rules, or licence conditions. In the present case, the liquor was seized from the possession of accused No.1, not from the possession of the petitioner (accused No.2). 7. Section 34 of the Act penalizes illegal possession of intoxicants. It requires proof that the accused was knowingly in possession of unlawfully imported, transported, or manufactured intoxicants. In this case, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner/accused No.2 had any knowledge or intent to facilitate an offence under this section. 8. The prosecution’s case against the petitioner/accused No.2 rests solely on the confession - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:82 CRL.P No. 102879 of 2023 statement of accused No.1, a co-accused. It is well-settled that the confession of a co-accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot form the sole basis for implicating another individual. There is no independent material or evidence to substantiate the claim that the liquor seized from accused No.1 was sold by accused No.2. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the essential elements to constitute offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act are absent in relation to accused No.2. The allegations against the petitioner are vague and unsupported by credible evidence. The petitioner appears to have been falsely implicated based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. 10. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law and is not sustainable in the absence of prima facie evidence. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.552/2023 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Sandur, insofar as it relates to accused No.2, the petitioner herein, is hereby quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:82 CRL.P No. 102879 of 2023 iii) The Trial Court shall proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE Kms Ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 106