- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8344 OF 2026 (482 (Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, UDUPI DISTRICT, ABHAKARI BHAVAN, AJJARKAD, UDUPI - 576 101. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, KUNDAPURA RANGE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) AND: SRI. JOBY JOHN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O JOHN M.J., R/AT THOTTUNGAL, MANIKKANAMPARABIL, MLA ROAD, KOCHUPALLI, UDYAMPEROOR, MANAKKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, NADAKKAVU, KERALA. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.01.2026 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.19/2025 BY THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-State is before the Court calling in question an order of the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.19/2025, whereby the Appellate Court set aside the order of the Government confiscating the vehicle and directing its release. 2. The learned HCGP representing the State submits that in the limited scope of release of the vehicle, the concerned Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction and set aside the order passed by the concerned Authority confiscating the vehicle, which was carrying beer bottles and feni. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 3. The concerned Court by following the order has upturned the order of confiscation and directed release of the vehicle. While so doing, the concerned Court has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.L.Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1979) 2 SCC 115, to hold that the very seizure or the proceedings was illegal. The concerned Court has observed as under: REASONS 11. Point-1: Section 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act typically deals with the confiscation of vehicles used in the commission of Excise offences. The provision usually outlines the procedure for confiscation, including the requirement of an enquiry and the passing of a speak in order by the authorized officer. The object of Section 43A is to provide a fast-track, administrative method to seize and confiscate property involved in excise crimes. 12. The registered that the owner argued prosecution failed to prove the seizure of vehicle and the liquor in accordance with the law, rendering the confiscation order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Per contra, the prosecution supports the confiscation order. 13. To pass a valid order of confiscation under Section 43A, the prosecution must prove - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 that the seizure was lawful and that the vehicle was actually used in the commission of an excise offense. 14. Let's examine whether the seizure is in accordance with law. Exhibit Pl; seizure mahazar reveals that in the car's rear seat, there was a cardboard box containing six bottles of 500 ML each Bud Wiser Premium King of Beer, six bottles of 330 ML each Eight Finger Eddie Beer, one 500 ML bottle of Tinto Coconut Feni and one 750 ML bottle of Honey Bees Premium Indian Brand. 15. Exhibit P7 is a photograph where the cardboard box is kept in front of the car. But, no photograph is taken or produced to show that the cardboard box containing liquor bottles was actually in the rear seat of the disputed car. 16. The photograph Exhibit P7 doesn't show the contraband in situ (in its original place of discovery within the vehicle), which render the seizure doubtful. Moreover, there's no explanation for not taking a photograph to show the original place inside the car where the liquor was found. Exhibit P7 doesn't clearly indicate the presence of 14 liquor bottles as alleged. 17. As per the contents of the seizure mahazar (Ex.P1), search warrant report (Ex.P2), first information repot (Ex.P4), notice under Section 41A (Ex.P6), the car was stopped at Shirur check post by Excise Police Constable Sri. Nanjundaswamy (Pw2), who informed Excise Inspector Sri.Surendra Alagur (Pwl). He arrived at the spot around 5:45 PM and summoned Panchas Sri. Ganapathi Bhatt (Pw5) and Sri. Rajesh, who were on duty at check post as SST officers due to election duty. Pwl prepared the search warrant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 report around 5:55 PM, and the car was searched around 6 PM. 18. The time-line supra manifest that there was a one-hour gap from the time the car was intercepted until the search commenced. If the officer had time to call superiors and wait for 45 minutes for them to arrive, they likely had enough time to approach a nearby Magistrate for a search warrant or at least record a very specific reason why they couldn't. 19. Section 54 is an exception to the rule. Usually, an officer must get a warrant from a Magistrate (Section 53). To skip the warrant, the officer must record; reason to believe an offense is committed and reason to believe that obtaining a warrant would allow the offender to escape or the evidence to be concealed. 20. Here, despite having a one-hour time, warrant from a nearby Magistrate was not obtained. Perusal of the search warrant report (Ex.P2) reveals no reason is mentioned for not obtaining the warrant. Instead, it simply states in the subject column that the warrant report is prepared for want of time to obtain the search warrant. Nothing is mentioned as to why the search warrant wasn't opted. The one-hour interval demonstrates that there was sufficient time for the authorities to either approach a jurisdictional Magistrate for a warrant or, at the very least, record a detailed justification for the emergency. The failure to do so, while the vehicle was already under their control, proves that the requirements of Section 54 were bypassed casually and arbitrarily. This renders the search illegal and the subsequent confiscation without jurisdiction. In case of K.L.Subbayya V. State of Karnataka, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 (1979) 2 SCC 115, it is held that; a search and seizure conducted without recording reasons is unlawful. This illegal seizure can vitiate the entire confiscation proceeding under Section 43A. 21. In the instant case, the Excise Inspector Sri.Surendra Alagur (Pwl) conducted the search andprepared the seizure mahazar. Pwl himself is the complainant as per the FIR (Ex.P4). The case is registered on the basis of seizure mahazar. 22. The Police and Excise officers have the power to register a case on their own "information" or "knowledge" (called a suo motu case). In such instances the officer who conducted the raid usually writes a report (sometimes called a self statement) which serves as the "complaint" to set law in motion. 23. The mahazar (seizure memo) is a record of what was found. While the mahazar itself is evidence of the seizure, the law requires a formal document (the FIR) to officially start the investigation. An FIR should ideally be registered before the raid and seizure, especially if the officer had prior credible information (here, after one hour of stopping of car search was conducted). If the police conduct the raid, seize a items and draw a mahazar first and only then go to the station to register an FIR, it is often viewed as an abuse of the process of law. Without an FIR, the officer had no authority to conduct the investigation (the raid in the first place). Registering a case solely on the basis of a seizure mahazar (without a prior formal complaint or a recorded FIR) is procedurally improper. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 24. Under Section 154 of the CrPC the police are mandated to register an FIR before starting an investigation. Conducting a raid, searching a car and drawing a mahazar before registering the FIR is considered investigation. If the police did this first and then went to the station to register the crime based on that mahazar, they have put the cart before the horse. Investigation cannot precede theregistration of an FIR. Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act have a strict requirement for search officer without warrant. If an officer conduct a search without a warrant, they must record their reasons to believe in writing before the search take place. The officer who conducted the raid must at least file a self report or a shara (report) to the SHO. If the case is registered only the mahazar, it lacks on a foundational information document required by law. A mahazar is merely a record of what was found, it is not a statement of fact that constitutes an information of a crime. A vehicle is being confiscated and an FIR was registered based solely on the mahazar without a formal report contains significant procedural flaws. A mahazar (panchanama) cannot be considered a complaint or a formal report. In this backdrop also the seizure is illegal and not sustainable under law. 25. During cross-examination Pw.1 testified that he prepared seizure mahazar, search warrant and specimen seal (Ex.P1 to 3) on the spot. In Exhibit P3 the Crime No.34/2023- 24/3103IE/310307 was mentioned. Whereas, seizure mahazar and search warrant do not bear the crime number. i) In chief evidence Pw.1 deposed that slips were affixed on the seized articles on the spot. But in cross-examination he stated that Crime - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 No.34/2023-24/3103ΙΕ/310307 is mentioned on the slips affixed to the seized articles. ii) If really Exhibits P1 to P3 were prepared on the spot and thereafter crime was registered despite specimen seal physically contains the case number then one can infer that the documents were actually prepared later at the Excise office, not at the place of seizure or the case number was inserted onto the document after the seal was already made or the officer is lying about the timing or location of the seizure. There is no plausible explanation is offered how the case number appeared on a "pre-FIR" document. In the absence of explanation the recovery itself may be deemed "manufactured". In Ex.P3, the case number is overwritten without affecting any initials beneath it, 26. The registered owner offered an explanation to the show cause notice stating that the alleged transportation of liquor was not within his knowledge. To demonstrate the same, he testified before the authorized officer on oath and his evidence remained intact as the complainant has not cross-examined the witness (Dw.1). Since the statement that the owner had no knowledge was not tested or questioned, the Court generally treats that evidence as unrebutted and unimpeached. An intact testimony carries much higher "probative value". Evidence not cross- examined is evidence admitted. If the complainant fails to shake the owner's "lack of knowledge" as a proven fact. 27. The prosecution's case is further weakened by not examining any independent witnesses or listing them in the charge sheet. Nothing is mentioned whether local inhabitants - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 were summoned or not. All the witnesses examined before the authorized officer and cited in the charge are official witnesses. This lack of independent corroboration raises more doubts about the seizure and the prosecution's narrative. 28. The prosecution argued that there is no bar to rely on the evidence of official witnesses. That's correct. While there's no inherent bar on relying on official witnesses, their testimony must be scrutinized carefully, especially when independent corroboration is lacking, which is the case here. In case of Girijaprasad V State of MP, (2007) 7 SCC 625, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that; Credibility of witness has to be tested on the touch stone of truthfulness & trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of Law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of Complainant or Police Official. But, it is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Official even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 In the present case, careful scrutiny of official witnesses' evidence, which is warranted due to the absence of independent evidence, reveals that the essential element of recovery of intoxicants from the car is doubtful. It's a cardinal principle of the criminal justice system that the benefit of doubt should always lean towards the accused. Given this, it's not safe to solely rely on the evidence of official witnesses in this case. Thus, the Authorized Officer erred confiscating the vehicle. Interference is warranted. Accordingly, the point-1 is answered in the affirmative. 29. Point-2: By virtue of above findings; Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order of confiscation dated 28.02.2025 passed in DTCR.No.969/2023-24 by the first respondent Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Udupi is set aside. The interim custody of car bearing No.KL- 07-CX-2696 is made absolute. Let the record of the Authorized Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Udupi, be transmitted back at the earliest accompanied by copy of this order.” 4. While so directing, the concerned Court has followed the judgment of K.L.Subbayya’s case and there - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34360 CRL.P No. 8344 of 2026 is no warrant of interference to the order so rendered by the first Appellate Court, which is on cogent reasons. 5. Finding no merit, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 145