Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 42245 (KAR)

SRI.SHANMUGAM. P v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/12148/2026 · 2026-09-22

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010548242026 NC: 2026:KHC:52296 CRL.P No. 12148 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12148 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI.SHANMUGAM. P, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,S/O PONNURANGAM, NO.A 41, 2ND MAIN 3RD CROSS, BHARATH NAGAR, BEML NAGAR KGF, BANGARPET, DISTRICT KOLAR-563115. (PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI UDHAYA KUMAR G, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SHO KARNATAKA EXCISE DEPARMENT CHINTAMANI,SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.4/2022- 23/1208SIE1/120808 KARNATAKA CHINATAMANI EXCISE DEPARTMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CC.NO.936/2023 FOR THE SAME THE TRIAL COURT HAS TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE ON DATED 09.01.2023 FOR ALLEGING OFFENCE U/S 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT 1965, AGAINST PETITIONER, THE SAME IS FILED BEFORE ON Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010548242026 NC: 2026:KHC:52296 CRL.P No. 12148 of 2026 THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHINTANMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed in C.C.No.936/2023 and to quash the order dated 09.01.2023 taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 11, 14, 15, 32, 38(A), 43(A) of The Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the matter is pending before the JMFC, Chintamani. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle from where allegedly the liquor is seized. It is the further submission that, liquor was sold in the year 2003 and to substantiate his contention learned counsel for petitioner has produced the delivery note. Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010548242026 NC: 2026:KHC:52296 CRL.P No. 12148 of 2026 3. It is further submission that, even assuming that the liquor does belong to the petitioner, the quantity allegedly seized is 450 ml excess of what is permitted. 4. Learned HCGP would submit that the maximum permissible limit is 2.3 liters and what is recovered is 5.40 liters. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised. 6. Admittedly, when the vehicle was intercepted and seized, it was standing in the name of the petitioner. The contention that the petitioner has sold the vehicle in the year 2003 is a matter which requires to be considered at the time of trial. At this juncture, the proceeding cannot be quashed. 7. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010548242026 NC: 2026:KHC:52296 CRL.P No. 12148 of 2026 8. All contentions kept open to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36 Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE