- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200593 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: NARSINGH S/O DEVENDRAPPA GUTTEDAR, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GANDHINAGAR, YADGIRI-585 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH YADGIR TOWN POLICE STATION, YADGIR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIR IN S.C NO. 19/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC 32, 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND U/SEC 328 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIRI IN SC NO. 19/2025 (ARISING OUT CRIME NO. 23/2024 OF YADGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO. 1 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET IS CONCERNED. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 07.03.2025 in S.C No.19/2025 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri arising out of Crime No.23/2024 of respondent - police for the offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The complainant had received an information stating that four to five persons were selling liquor without having a valid licence near Gandhinagar, Yadgiri. The complainant, after securing the panch witnesses and also his staff, went to the spot and conducted the raid. During the said search, he noticed four persons, namely, Narsingh, Neelakanteshwar, Chandrakala and Sujatha. All the four persons fled away from the spot. The liquor was seized in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 the presence of panch witnesses. In all, the complainant has seized several litres of liquor and other items which were being used to prepare the said liquor, namely, 999 Brand Saccharine 22 packets of 1 Kg each, 999 Brand Small Citric acid 17 packets of 1 Kg each, 10 Kgs of jaggery etc. All the items were sent to FSL for chemical analysis. Based on the said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.23/2024. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 3. Heard Sri.Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the first information report has been lodged on the basis of seizure mahazar report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Yadgiri Town Police Station, which is not maintainable. 5. It is further submitted that the Investigation Officer has not followed the procedure which was required to be followed in terms of Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 Excise Act. As such, the proceedings against the petitioner has to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State justified the action of the respondent – police and he further submitted that the procedure established has been followed in accordance with law. Prima facie, the respondent – police have seized all the materials used for preparing the liquor and it is also established that accused Nos.1 to 4 were selling the liquor without having any licence. Therefore, the registration of the case and also the filing of the charge sheet is justified and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition has to be rejected. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the complainant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 stated to be the Circle Inspector of Police, Yadgiri Circle. He is stated to have received an information regarding the sale of liquor near Gandhinagar without having any valid licence. He is stated to have conducted the raid on the premises and seized the liquor and also certain items which were used for preparing the said liquor. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint. 8. As per the averments of the charge sheet, initially, a case came to be registered against four accused. Subsequently, on 03.06.2024, the respondent police wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Yadagiri to delete accused Nos.2 to 4 and proceed against accused No.1. Further, it is noticed that the respondent police or the complainant has not followed the procedure which was required to be followed before conducting a raid. 9. Now, it is relevant to refer the provisions under Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, which read as under: “53. Power of magistrate to issue a warrant.- If a magistrate, upon information and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks necessary, has reason - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, he may issue a warrant,- (a) for the search of any place in which he has reason to believe that any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement, apparatus or materials which are used for the commission of such offence or in respect of which such offence has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, are kept or concealed, and (b) for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have been, to be, or to be likely to be, engaged in the commission of any such offence. 54. 54. Power to search without warrant.- Whenever the Excise Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or any police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station or any Excise Officer not below such rank as may be prescribed, has reason to believe that an offence under Section 32, Section 33, Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has been, is being, or is likely to be, 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,- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 (a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and (b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.” 10. On careful reading of the above said provisions, it makes it clear that before conducting the raid, the complainant had to obtain the permission from the Magistrate of the local jurisdiction. In case, if such permission cannot be obtained under the extraneous circumstances, he has to record the reason for not obtaining the permission from the Magistrate. Not complied with such mandatory requirements would vitiate the entire proceedings. 11. In this case, neither the respondent police nor the complainant has not followed the procedure which was required to be followed. Hence, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. 12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2071 CRL.P No. 200593 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in S.C No.19/2025 arising out of Crime No.23/2024 of respondent police, pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:PK