- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SUNIL M. G., S/O GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT TUDIYALA VASA, MAKONAHALLI VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 550. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 2. SMT. MEENAKSHI K.V., INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1300/2024 (CRIME NO. 100/2023-24) REGISTERED BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) AND 43(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965 AND RULE 3 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE (LIQUOR TRANSIT) RULES, 1985 AND THE CASE IS PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILES OF HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC.No.1300/2024. Respondent No.2 registered a suo-moto complaint against the petitioner which led to the registration of crime in Cr.No.100/2023-24 for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) and 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short 'K.E. Act') and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Liqour Transit) Rules, 1985. 2. The petitioner, who is alleged to have been found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky, seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground that, even if the charge sheet materials are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules-1967”). The petitioner contends that the quantity possessed falls within the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 permissible limit prescribed under Rule 21 and, therefore, no case is made out against him. In support of his contention, the petitioner has also placed the relevant Rules on record. Rule 21 of the Rules-1967 expressly permits possession of brandy, whisky, gin, rum, and milk punch, excluding foreign liquor, up to 4.6 liters. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, and have perused the records carefully. 4. On a careful perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused solely on the allegation that he was found in possession of one bottle containing 2 liters of Imperial Blue Blended Grain Whisky. The charge sheet proceeds on the premise that such possession constitutes an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. However, Rule 21 of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, “Rules- 1967”) specifically permits possession of whisky, brandy, gin, rum, and milk punch, excluding foreign liquor, up to a quantity of 4.6 liters. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly in possession of only 2 liters of whisky, which is well within the prescribed permissible limit. Therefore, even if the charge sheet allegations are accepted in their entirety, no offence is made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly unsustainable, as there is no likelihood of conviction and the only possible outcome would be acquittal. 5. In the backdrop of the petitioner having been found in possession of liquor within the permissible limit, allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. To secure the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 this Court is of the considered opinion that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, require to be exercised in the present case. 6. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also demonstrated that the proceedings are vitiated for non- compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 53 and 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. These provisions lay down the statutory safeguards governing search, seizure, and arrest in excise-related offences. Section 53 mandates that, except in cases of emergency, the concerned authority, namely the Excise Inspector, is required to obtain a search warrant before conducting any search. Section 54 further prescribes the manner in which such searches and seizures are to be effected. In the present case, it is not in dispute that no search warrant was obtained prior to the alleged seizure of liquor from the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 7. This precise issue fell for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.10259/2021, where it was held that the mandate under Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act is mandatory in nature and any violation thereof would render the entire proceedings incurable in law. The Co-ordinate Bench categorically held that initiation of prosecution without compliance with the statutory requirement of a search warrant vitiates the very foundation of the case. In the light of the said authoritative pronouncement, it is clear that the present proceedings, initiated in CC.No.1300/2024, are vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards and are therefore liable to be quashed on this ground as well. ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed; ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.1300/2024 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, are hereby quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35252 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2025 Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36