- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100223 OF 2025 (397 OF CR.P.C/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI NARAYANA S/O. DEMANNA GANGADHAR AGE 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COOLIE WORK, RESIDING AT KAWALVAD, TALUK: HALIYAL, DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA INSPECTOR OF EXCISE SUB DIVISION, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, NAVANGAR, HUBBALLIM DISTRICT DHARWAD-580021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, H.C.G.P.) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28 OF 2024 DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, AND SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF THE OFFENCES UNDER THE POCSO ACT AND SC AND ST (POA) ACT, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONFISCATION IN EXE/CON.20/2021-2022 DATED 07.02.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2024 dated 27-2-2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad & Special Court for Trial of the Offences under the POCSO Act and SC & ST (POA) Act, confirming the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Navanagar, Hubballi, in EXE/CON/20/2021-2022 dated 7-2-2024. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 5-3-2022 at 1:00 p.m., the Excise Inspector Sub-Division, Dharwad, received credible information about transportation of alcohol in Indica Vista car, bearing Registration No.KA-49/M-3727 without any pass or permit. Hence, the Excise Inspector along with staff and panchas intercepted the car and found two litres of 6 MacDowell - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 whiskey, 2 litres of 4 Royal Stag Bottle, 500 ml. Kingfisher Premium 24 beer bottles, which were transporated without any pass or permit. Hence, the Excise inspector seized the said vehicle and articles, and also arrested accused Nos.1 and 2, where the Excise Inspector conducted seizure panchanama and seized the aforesaid articles and lodged a complaint to the first information. This led to registration of First Information Report and investigation. 3. Accused No.1 is the owner of the car. Therefore, accused No.1 filed an application under Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act') for release of the vehicle in his favour before the Authorised Officer. However, on 7-2-2024, the Authorised Officer passed the order confiscating the vehicle to the Government. Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation, the petitioner preferred appeal before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2024. In turn, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Authorised - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 Officer. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Heard Sri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Excise Inspector conducted investigation without registering First Information Report. Further, on the basis of panchanama, a case has been registered, which is not permissible under law. The Investigating Officer has not prepared report under Section 54 of the Act before search and seizure. In the said report, the reasons for not obtaining search warrant from the jurisdictional Court are not clearly stated. He has contended that in the complaint, the complainant has stated that the Excise Officer has received credible information, where the specific colour, type, etc. of the vehicle was also informed, much prior to the interception. Despite the fact that the Excise Officer, who received credible information, has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 failed to obtain necessary permission, and failed to intimate his higher officials, and failed to record any information in the Case Diary. In the absence of such proceedings, the alleged raid/interception with the registration of First Information Report is unknown to law. Learned counsel has further contended that, the independent panchas, i.e. recovery panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of independent witnesses with regard to seizure of vehicle is concerned, the same is not proved. Learned counsel has further contended that as per Ex.P1-warrant under Section 54 of the Act, which is a printed form, wherein, the number of vehicle is not shown and the contents of Ex.P1 states that the warrant is obtained to search a place and not the vehicle. Therefore, the important aspects of the matter has not been properly considered and appreciated by the First Appellate Court as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 well as the Authorised Officer while passing the impugned orders. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that Section 54 of the Act empowers the Excise Officer to search the vehicle without obtaining search warrant. He further submits that Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967, specifies that any Authorised Officer may exercise the powers of entry and inspection under Sections 51 and 54 of the Act without any warrant. Hence, he submits that registration of First Information Report is in compliance of Section 51 of the Act and the same does not warrant any interference. 7. On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the Excise Inspector conducted raid and seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 without registering First Information Report as required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 8. Section 54 of the Act allows an Officer in-charge of a Police Station to search a place without a warrant if they have reason to believe an offense under the Act is being committed, and obtaining a warrant would jeopardize the investigation by allowing the offender to escape or destroy evidence. The Officer must record the reasons for their belief before conducting the search and seizure. 9. In the instant case, the Excise Officer without search warrant, or without recording the reasons for dispensing with the search warrant, has intercepted the car and conducted search in the car, which is impermissible. Admittedly, the alleged offences are cognizable in nature. Therefore, the registration of First Information Report is in violation of Section 54 of the Act and the registration of First Information Report is not sustainable in law. 10. So far as confiscation of vehicle is concerned, the Authorised Officer wrongly appreciated the evidence available before him. None of the independent witnesses - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 has supported the case of the prosecution. However, the Authorised Officer placing reliance of the oral testimonies of PWs.1, 4 and 5, who are the official witnesses, proceeded to pass impugned order, wherein he confiscated the vehicle of accused No.1. Further, as per Ex.P1-warrant under Section 54 of the Act, which is a printed form, wherein the vehicle number is not shown and the contents of Ex.P1 reveals that warrant was obtained to search the place and not the vehicle. Therefore, the important aspect of contents of Ex.P1 has not been properly considered by the Authorised Officer as well as the First Appellate Court. In the absence of oral evidence of independent witnesses, the Authorised Officer proceeded to pass confiscation order without there being any corroboration. Hence, the confiscation order passed by the Authorised Officer and confirmed by the First Appellate Court requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8029 CRL.RP No. 100223 of 2025 O R D E R i. Criminal revision petition is allowed. ii. The order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Navanagar, Hubballi, in EXE/CON/20/2021-2022 dated 7-2-2024, confirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad & Special Court for Trial of the Offences under the POCSO Act and SC & ST (POA) Act, in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2024 dated 27-2- 2025, are hereby quashed. iii. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 43A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, is hereby allowed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17