- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101556 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528M OF BNSS) BETWEEN: REDDY SRINIVAS S/O. REDDY VERA RAJU, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SRIRAM NAGAR, TALUKA GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL-584130. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR SHRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE THROUGH POLICE OFFICER, GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED BY THE GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION KOPPAL IN CRIME NO.93/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.32, 34 OF KARNATAKA EXERCISE ACT 1965 AND SECTION 171 E OF IPC) IN C.C.NO.03/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GANGAVATHI AGAINST PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, 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:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.93/2023 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and Section 171 E of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 10.05.2023, the elections were scheduled to be held by State Assembly. On 09.05.2023 at about 6.00 a.m., the first informant had received a credible - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 information regarding possession of the liquor material at the premises of the accused. On the basis of the said information, the first informant gathered his sub-staff and panchas and conducted a raid on the premises. However, petitioner ran away from the spot. 4. During the course of said raid, the first informant seized 21 boxes containing 180 ml bottles of Royal Blue Malt Whisky, totally 1008 bottles, with an estimated value of Rs.70,560/-. These bottles were seized for further investigation and the first information report (FIR) was filed, which led to the registration of the FIR and investigation. 5. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer arrested the petitioner, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings, on the ground that the Investigating Officer, after receipt of a credible information, went to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 spot along with his sub-staff and panchas, conducted raid on the petitioner, seized the items which was being carried by the petitioner without a valid licence and therefore, the Investigating Officer could not obtain the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is required to be obtained as per Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act'). Further, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation without registration of the FIR in respect of the cognizable offence which is bad in law. Hence, petitioner prays to quash the entire proceedings. 6. Per contra, Sri.Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State, justified the acts of the investigating officer. However, he does not dispute that the investigating officer conducted a raid and seized 1008 bottles without registration of the FIR. 7. Hence, it is just and necessary to peruse materials available on record. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the investigating - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 officer, soon after receiving information, conducted a raid and seized 1008 bottles without registration of an FIR. However, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused without looking the mandatory provisions under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Section 53 of the Act provides for obtaining the search warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate for the purpose of conducting search of any place, if the Competent Officer has got reason to believe that the intoxicants or contraband articles are kept or concealed in the said places, or for arrest of any person, whom he has reason to believe had committed the offences mentioned in the said Section. 9. Section 54 of the Act provides for power to search without warrant. 10. From the reading of Section 54 of the Act, it is very clear that in the event, if the Competent Officer has reason to believe that an offence punishable under said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 Section is likely to be committed or is being committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without giving an opportunity to the offender to escape, he may after recording the grounds for his belief, proceed to search a place and also arrest the accused found in the said place, whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as mentioned in such Section. 11. In the present case, admittedly, the requirement of Section 53 of the Act, has not been complied with by the Police officer before carrying out search and seizure in the intended place and arrest of the accused. 12. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded the conviction. He further contended that the Investigating Officer, after receiving credible information, went to the spot along with his sub-staff and panchas, conducted a raid on the petitioner and seized the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 items which was being carried by the petitioner without a valid licence. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could not obtain the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is required to be obtained as per Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act'). Further, the Investigating Officer offered an explanation under which the circumstances could not secure the required permission and said explanation is also marked as Ex.P1- search warrant, which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. 13. In the present case, admittedly, the requirement of Section 53 of the Act, has not been complied with by PW.1 before carrying out search and seizure in the intended place and arrest of the accused. 14. In a case where the statutory requirements, which is mandatory in nature, are not complied with by the prosecution and conducting a raid without registration - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8319 CRL.P No. 101556 of 2024 of FIR which would be highly difficult to place reliance on the prosecution’s cases. 15. When the registration of the F.I.R. itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings are liable to be set aside. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. The petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C. No.03/2024, pending before the learned Principal civil Judge and JMFC at Gangavathi, is hereby quashed. iii. Pending I.A’s, if any, stands disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25