- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100173 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. VISHAL S/O. SHRIKANT KALAL, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.4217, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADYOJAT R. BELIGATTIMATH FOR SRI. NAVEEN R. MELINAMANI AND SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EXCISE, DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 PASSED THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82/2018 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DHARWAD, IN EXE/CON/06/2015-16 IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.12/2015-16 IN CONFISCATING THE TATA ACE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA22/8504, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri Sadyojat R. Beligattimath, learned counsel for Sri Naveen R. Melinamani, learned counsel and Sri Kushal V. Bolmal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the appellant-petitioner herein challenging the judgment and order dated 31.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.82/2018 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short ‘the appellate Court’), whereby the order bearing No.EXC/CON/06/2015-16 dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Dharwad (for short ‘the competent authority’), came to be confirmed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 3. The brief facts as available are; on 29.11.2015, the Excise Inspector received credible information regarding the illegal transportation of liquor without a valid permit. Acting upon the said information, the Excise Inspector, intercepted a Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-22/B-8504 and upon conducting a search, found 8 boxes containing 48 tetra packs of whisky, each of 180 ml capacity. It was ascertained that the said liquor was being transported without a permit issued by the competent authority, and the same was accordingly seized. In this regard, a case came to be registered in Crime No.12/2015-16 for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 34, 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Excise Act’). 4. Thereafter, confiscation proceedings in respect of the vehicle were initiated before the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Dharwad. In the course of the proceedings, the prosecution examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked 8 documents as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 Exhibits P1 to P8, and also identified Material Object No.1 (M.O.1). The petitioner examined 1 witness as DW.1. The competent authority on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by order dated 28.09.2018, directed the confiscation of the Tata Ace vehicle. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.82/2018. The appellate Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the competent authority. 6. Sri Sadyojat R. Beligattimath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle in the transportation of illicit liquor. Learned counsel further contends that the panch witnesses to the seizure of the vehicle and the illicit liquor have not supported the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 the prosecution. Further submits that the prior permission of the Magistrate had not been obtained before conducting the inspection and seizure. Hence, the entire process of inspection, seizure and confiscation is contrary to the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent– State, submits that the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to the present case. Learned AGA further contends that the proceedings initiated under the Excise Act are an exception to the provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Excise Act constitute a complete code in themselves, empowering the authorities to conduct searches with or without a warrant and to seize articles liable for confiscation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 7.1 Learned AGA further submits that the order of confiscation has been passed under Section 43(A) of the Excise Act. It is submitted that Section 43(A) casts a burden on the owner to establish that the person in charge of the vehicle had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent its use for transportation of liquor. It is contended that the said burden has not been discharged by the petitioner. Learned AGA also submits that both the competent authority and the Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, have concluded that the vehicle was used in the commission of an offence under Section 43(A) of the Excise Act and is, therefore, liable for confiscation. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the search was conducted without obtaining a warrant from the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 Magistrate is untenable. While Section 53 of the Excise Act mandates the issuance of a search warrant by the Magistrate, Section 54 of the said Act empowers an Excise Officer, not below the rank as may be prescribed, to conduct search and seizure without a warrant, provided the officer has reason to believe that an offence is being or is likely to be committed or has been committed and that obtaining a warrant would afford the offender an opportunity to escape or to conceal evidence of the offence. In view of the specific provisions contained in the Excise Act, which govern the requirement of a search warrant and also contemplate situations where search and seizure may be effected without such warrant, the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., have no application to the present case. 10. It is relevant to refer to the observation made by the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Tasleem N.P., vs. State of Karnataka and other connected cases - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 [(2020) SCC OnLine Kar 1533] on the role of police officer when he receives information of crime; “10. ….where a police officer only receives a credible or secret information about an offence which is about to be committed, I may with great respect observe that the primary duty of police is to prevent an offence from happening; immediately after receiving the information, a police officer has to proceed to spot for averting the crime, and taking such other measures as the situation demands. In Lalita Kumari (supra), the focus is on the duty of Station House Officer once he receives information about commission of offence, that means the information should disclose a crime being already committed. And in such a situation, if the crime is cognizable, the Station House Officer is bound to register FIR without wasting time. But the secret information does not disclose a crime being committed, it only alerts the police about a crime which is about to occur. The police officer who receives such information has to proceed to spot for preventing the crime or to take such other measures that the situation demands. Thereafter if he prepares a report, it may be treated as FIR for further course of action. Sometimes, offences do take place in the presence of the police officer. In such a situation, his first duty is to arrest the accused and collect the evidence, and not registration of FIR.” 10.1 In present, Excise Officer has acted as observed by this Court in the case referred to supra. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 11. It is true that the panch witnesses to the seizure have turned hostile. However, they have admitted their signatures on the mahazar. If the seizure is otherwise corroborated by the contents of the panchanama, the hostility of the witnesses would not, by itself, vitiate the case of the prosecution. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that he had no knowledge of the involvement of the vehicle or its alleged use for transporting illicit liquor. The ownership of the vehicle in question, standing in the name of the petitioner, is not in dispute. Once the vehicle is found transporting liquor without any valid permits, the burden shifts to the owner to establish that he had no knowledge of the vehicle being used in the commission of the offence. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden as contemplated under Section 43(B) of the Excise Act. In such circumstances, the only conclusion that logically follows is that the vehicle, along with the goods, is liable to be confiscated. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8332 CRL.RP No. 100173 of 2019 12. The competent authority and the Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, have held that the petitioner has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him. This Court has also perused the material on record and considered the grounds urged by the petitioner. After independent appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the competent authority and the Appellate Court are well- reasoned, based on established facts. 13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no error or perversity in the orders impugned. No substantive ground has been made out by the petitioner to warrant interference with the findings recorded by the competent authority and the Appellate Court. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1