- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101918 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SIDDHART S/O. PRAKASH LADWA, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/AT. 3RD CROSS, KAMARIPETH, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 026. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KAMARIPETH POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 01/06/2022 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.3/PETITIONER IN KAMARIPETH PS CRIME NO.06/2022 WHICH IS REGISTERED IN C.C. NO.1193/2022 ON THE FILE OF JMFC-III COURT, AT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.3 is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding in C.C.No.1193/2022 pending before the Court of JMFC-III, Hubballi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that seized liquor in the present case was being transported in an auto rickshaw and there is no compliance of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act in the present case. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is bad in law. 4. Learned HCGP who has opposed the petition, does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the FIR was registered against unknown persons based on the credible information received from the first informant, that without valid permit liquor was being transported in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-63/2271. In the raid, that was conducted subsequently, police had seized the liquor that was being transported illegally in the aforesaid auto rickshaw by the accused persons. 6. Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act provides for the power to the Magistrate to issue a warrant for search and Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act provides for the power to search without warrant. Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act reads as follows: “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, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 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,- (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.” 7. Though in Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act, the word used is “place” for the purpose of search, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KL Subbayya vs. State of Karnataka1 has held that the word “place” under the Act included the vehicle. In the case on hand, the vehicle from which the contraband articles were recovered and seized is an auto rickshaw and therefore, in 1 AIR 1979 SC 711 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 view of the aforesaid judgment, the Investigation Officer ought to have obtained a warrant for the purpose of searching the vehicle. In the event, he was not in a position to obtain a warrant, then as provided under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, he should have recorded the reasons for his belief that such warrant cannot be obtained without affording an opportunity to escape or of concealing the evidence of offence. In the case on hand, prima facie it appears that the requirement of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act has not been complied. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the continuation of the further proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process and law. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The entire proceeding in C.C.No.1193/2022 pending before the Court of JMFC-III, Hubballi registered for the offences - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10221 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2025 punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act against the petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 72