Karnataka High Court
R Vishwanath vs State By Excise Inspector on 17 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7202 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. R.VISHWANATH
S/O.RAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
SALESMEN AT
M/S.LIQUOR MART CL-2
HADADI ROAD
DAVANAGERE-577 002
2. RAJENDRA K.BHUTE
S/O.KRISHNA SA BHUTE
LICENSE HOLDER
M/S.LIQUOR MART CL-2
HADADI ROAD
DAVANAGERE-577 002
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
CHANDANA
BM STATE BY EXCISE INSPECTOR
Location: OFFICE OF EXCISE INSPECTOR
High Court EXCISE PS
of Karnataka
DAVANAGERE RANGE-2
DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.5416/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ACJ AND JMFC
COURT, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 14, 15(1), 29, 32(1), 34, 36, 38(A), 41, 43(A) OF
THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND RULE 21(3) OF THE
KARNATAKA EXCISE LICENCES (GENERAL CONDITIONS)
RULES, 1967.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners-accused seek
quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.
5416/2021 on the file of the Court of III ACJ and JMFC,
Davanagere, against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 14, 15(1), 29, 32(1), 34, 36,
38(A), 41, 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and Rule
21(3) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions)
Rules, 1967.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
and perused the material on record.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. In addition to reiterating the contentions urged in
the petition and referring to the material on record,
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, before
conducting the impugned search and seizure on 18th
August, 2020, whereby, the respondent is alleged to have
seized the liquor bottles from the petitioners, it was
incumbent upon the respondent to either obtain a warrant
or record reasons to believe in writing so as to dispense
with the obtaining of warrant as mandated under Section
54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. In this context, it is
submitted that, in the absence of reasons to believe
recorded in writing so as to dispense with the requirement
of obtaining of warrant, the impugned proceedings
resulting in seizure of liquor bottles from the petitioners
and culminating in the impugned F.I.R. and charge sheet
are contrary to the aforesaid provisions and the same
deserves to be quashed.
4. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners
invited my attention to the impugned F.I.R. and charge
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
sheet in order to point out that before registering the
F.I.R., it was incumbent upon the respondent to file a
report. In this regard, it is submitted that, except
conducting search and seizure on 18th August, 2020 and
drawing up a mahazar, a separate report in this regard
was not filed by the respondent before registration of
F.I.R., which would also vitiate the impugned F.I.R. and
charge sheet. In support of his submission, learned
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment
of this Court in the case of DAYANANDA @ R. BABU
AND ANOTHER vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.
BY EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR, HUNSUR RANGE in
Criminal Revision Petition No.129 of 2021 disposed of on
04th April, 2024 and in the case of CHENGAPPA M.S. vs.
THE STATE BY EXCISE POLICE STATION, HUNSURU
in Criminal Petition No.10259 of 2021 disposed of on 22nd
March, 2024.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent submits that there is no merit in
the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in his
submission that before conducting the impugned search
and seizure, whereby, the alleged liquor bottles from the
petitioners were seized, the respondent had not obtained
any search warrant; so also, necessary reasons to believe
had not been recorded in writing so as to dispense with
the obtaining of search warrant as mandatorily required
under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.
7. Under identical circumstances, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court held as under:
In Criminal Petition No.10259/2021.
“ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the
criminal proceedings in C.C. No.63/2021 pending on
the file of principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur,
arising out of Crime No.14/2019-
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024HC-KAR
20/2610SIE1/261010 registered by Karnataka
Excise Department, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur,
Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections
11, 14, 32, 34, 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965
(for short ‘K.E. Act’).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondents.
3. The case of the complainant is that he
received information from one R. Somashekhar,
Assistant Horticulture Officer, HD Kote Taluk SST-2,
who was working in the temporary check post of
Manuganahalli, alleging that on 16.11.2019, the
election code of conduct was in force and during
2019 Karnataka Assembly Elections, Hundai Crerta
4 wheel vehicle was carrying liquor. When the
vehicle was searched around 3.50 p.m., 12 bottles
of 750 ML Morpheus XO Blended Premium Brandy
were apprehended. After the receipt of intimation,
the excise inspector along with team went to the
spot, seized the liquor and the car, and thereafter,
went to the police station and registered FIR and in
turn, filed charge sheet which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that there is violation of Sections 53 and
54 of the K.E. Act. Without recording reasons, the
respondent has arrested the petitioner and seized
the liquor and produced before the Court. There is
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024HC-KAR
no reference in the FIR of recording reasons, but in
the spot mahazar, the respondent has subsequently
added the record of reasons, and the respondents
have not obtained warrant under Section 53 of the
K.E. Act. Therefore, seizing the articles, registering
the FIR without recording reasons and
commencement of investigation, is violation of the
provisions of the K.E. Act. Therefore, the FIR is not
sustainable. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
In support of his arguments, the learned
counsel has relied up on the following judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court:
(i) K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka –
(1979) 2 SCC 115.
(ii) L Srinivas Vs. The Authorised Officer
and another – ILR 1999 KAR 2872.
(iii) Sri. Abhijeet Lalchand Landge And
Others Vs. State of Karnataka And
Another in Criminal Petition
No.5855/2019 Dated on 26.11.2019.
(iv) Kumar vs. State of Karnataka And
Another in Criminal Petition
No.8658/2019 Dated on 08.01.2020.
(v) Babu Naika And Others Vs. State of
Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.52/2014
decided on 09.03.2020.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader has opposed the petition and contended
that the respondent, after following all the
procedures, has arrested the petitioner and
therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, perused the records.
7. On perusal of the records, it is clear that
one Somashekhar, Assistant Horticulture Officer,
gave an intimation to the Excise Inspector that at
3.50 p.m., they apprehended the person having
liquor of 10 bottles of brandy, without permit or
licence, which is in violation of the provisions of the
K.E. Act. The Excise Inspector seized the articles
under Panchanama and thereafter, came to the
police station and registered FIR.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that
though in the panchanama, it is mentioned that FIR
was prepared after recording the reasons for not
obtaining the warrant under Section 53 of the K.E.
Act, there is possibility of the accused flee away
from the case and escape from the clutches of law.
Record of reasons to be recorded before obtaining
the warrant. In FIR, it is stated that the Excise
Inspector came to the spot, seized the car and
apprehended the accused and came to the office
and registered FIR. There is no mention about
reducing into writing of reasons or not recording
reasons under section 54 of the K.E. Act, which is
mandatory.
9. As per Section 53 of the K.E. Act, in any
case, there is apprehension by the officer that there
is chance of accused fleeing away from the justice,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
the question of coming to the Court for obtaining
warrant, does not arise. Here, in this case, there is
an electron officer in the check post and he has
already caught the accused red hand and kept in his
custody. Therefore, Excise Inspector is required to
obtain the warrant under Section 53 of the K.E. Act
as there is no chance of the petitioner flee away
from the spot.
10. That apart, either in the complaint or in
the FIR, which is registered by the respondent-
complainant, he has not whispered anything about
the record of reasons for visiting the spot or
apprehending the accused, whereas in the
panchanama, the record of reasons is mentioned
and it was reduced into writing, thereafter, went to
the spot. The record of reasons has not
accompanied with the FIR in order to show that the
complainant has obtained warrant before registering
the FIR. He visited the spot and registered the FIR.
There is clear violation of the provisions of the K.E.
Act. There is no mention in the FIR for not obtaining
warrant, but it is mentioned in panchanama and it is
only after thought. It is not sent immediately after
the seizure along with PF and FIR. Such being the
case, the panchanama appears to be created by the
investigation officer after filing of the charge sheet
or before filing of the charge sheet. The entire
bottles were not sent to the examination and only
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
four bottles were sent. Here also, the violation of
the provisions of the K.E. Act is found.
11. This Court, in the case of DAMERA
UPENDRA RAO AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BY
EXCISE DEPARTMENT POLICE in Criminal Petition
No.2121/2022 decided on 14.12.2022, has
considered the aforesaid aspect and quashed the
proceedings. Further, in the case of G. PUTTARAJU
Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in
Writ Petition No.20816/2023 decided on
31.01.2024, this Court has already held that without
registering FIR, commencement of investigation, is
in violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 12. That
apart, sending the less quantity of the bottles than
the seized quantity of bottles for examination, and
without recording the reasons for not obtaining
warrant, seizing the articles and commencing the
investigation without registering FIR, is violative of
the provisions of the K.E. Act as well as Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the criminal proceedings is not
sustainable in law.
12. That apart, sending the less quantity of
the bottles than the seized quantity of bottles for
examination, and without recording the reasons for
not obtaining warrant, seizing the articles and
commencing the investigation without registering
FIR, is violative of the provisions of the K.E. Act as
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
well as Cr.P.C. Therefore, the criminal proceedings
is not sustainable in law.
13. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed.
The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.63/2021
pending on the file of principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hunsur, arising out of Crime No.14/2019-
20/2610SIE1/261010 registered by Karnataka
Excise Department, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur,
Mysuru, is hereby quashed.”
In Criminal Petition No.278 of 2018
c/w
Criminal Petition No.279 of 2018
“ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed these
criminal petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.
No.293/2017 and 277/2015 respectively, both on
the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Narasimharajapura wherein the
petitioner was charge sheeted by the respondent for
the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of
the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Act’ for short).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in
both case and the learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent State.
3. The case of the prosecution in criminal
petition No.278/2018 is that one K.R. Sunitha,
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
Police Sub-Inspector of N.R. Pura Police Station,
filed a complaint alleging that she received credible
information that on 24.09.2016 at 6.30 a.m. when
she was on patrolling duty, accused No.1-
Padmanabha was selling liquors in front of provision
store without any permit or licence. Immediately,
the complainant-officer along with panchas went to
the spot, seized liquor bottles under panchanama
and came back to police station, registered a case in
Crime No.111/2016 for the offences punishable
under Sections 32 and 34 of the Act. During
investigation, it was found that accused No.1 given
voluntary statement that the petitioner-accused
No.2 supplied liquors to him. Therefore, the police
filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused
No.2, which is under challenge.
Whereas in Criminal Petition No.279/2018, the
case of the prosecution is that, on 13.02.2015, one
Sadananda, who is a Police Circle Inspector, filed a
complaint alleging that he received credible
information that on 13.02.2015 at 7.30 a.m.,
Halesha-accused No.1 said to be selling liquors
without permit or licence in front of his shop.
Immediately, he along with panchas went to the
spot and seized 13 pouches of Amrut’s Silver Cup
Brandy, 11 pouches of Haywards Cheers Whisky, 17
tetra packs of 3 Aces Whiskey and other brands of
whisky, totaling worth Rs.1,888/-, which is more
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
than the permissible quantity. After registering the
case, during investigation, it was revealed that the
petitioner-accused No.2 supplied liquor to the
accused No.1 in the present cases. Therefore, the
police filed charge sheet against the petitioner
showing him as accused No.2, which is under
challenge.
4. In both cases, as the issue and point of law
is one and the same and as the petitioner-accused
No.2 is also one and the same, they are taken for
common disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
mainly argued that before going to search and seize
the property, the police officer or police department
officials shall request permission to issue search
warrant form the Magistrate to search or seize the
liquors as required under Section 53 of the Act and
if the officials are unable to get warrant and they
want to proceed, immediately they have to write
reasons and record in a dairy maintained by the
officer and proceed as per Section 54 of the Act. The
police officials have not followed the mandatory
provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act.
Therefore, the criminal proceeding against the
petitioner is not sustainable.
In respect of his arguments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.L.
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
Subbayya Vs.State of Karnataka reported in
(1979)2 SCC 115 and also the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Crl.Appeal No.2619/2012 decided
on 18.09.2020.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent State has contended that the
petitioner-accused No.2 has supplied liquor to
accused No.1 in both cases and the police seized the
same under panchanama. The petitioner-accused is
a habitual offender and therefore, prayed for
dismissing the petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the records, it is not in
dispute that the police have seized in front of the
shop of accused No.1 wherein he was found in
possession of liquors weighing more than the
permissible quantity without any permit/licence.
However, In both cases, the police officials have not
at all stated anything about obtaining warrant or not
given requisition for obtaining warrant as per
sections 53 of the Act and also recorded any reason
for not obtaining warrant as per Section 54 of the
Act. They blindly seized the liquors from the custody
of accused No.1. Apart from that, there is no
material placed on record to show that the
petitioner is a habitual offender. Except voluntary
statement of accused No.1 that petitioner-accused
No.2 has supplied liquors to accused No.1, no
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
information is collected by the investigation officer
that the petitioner is running wine shop or the bar.
Such being the case, conducting criminal
proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of
process of law.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.L. Subbayya Vs. State of Karnataka reported
in (1979)2 SCC 115 and the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Crl. Appeal No.2619/2012 decided on
18.09.2020 have quashed the proceedings against
the petitioner therein. Therefore, I am of the view
that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner
are liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed.
The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.293/2017 and
277/2015, both on the file of the Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narasimharajapura,
are hereby quashed.”
8. As is clear from the aforesaid judgments of this
Court, compliance of provisions contained under Section
54 of the Karnataka Excise Act is mandatory and non-
compliance thereof and non-obtaining of a search warrant
prior to the search and seizure would vitiate the impugned
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
F.I.R., charge sheet and all further proceedings pursuant
thereto, deserves to be quashed.
9. Insofar as the contention regarding registration of
F.I.R. without filing the report as required under Section
154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, in the
case of DAYANANDA @ R. BABU (supra), under identical
circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as
under:
“15. On perusal of the entire documents,
Ex.P1 is considered as seizure mahazar under which
liquor bottles have been seized by stating that the
accused were transporting it without having any
valid license. It is the submission of learned counsel
for petitioner that the search and seizure conducted
without registration of FIR in respect of cognizable
offence is bad in law is concerned, it is relevant to
refer to the provision under Sections 154 and 157 of
Cr.P.C..
“154. Information in cognizable
cases.–(1) Every information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing by
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024HC-KAR
him or under his direction, and be read over
to the informant; and every such
information, whether given in writing or
reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a book
to be kept by such officer in such form as
the State Government may prescribe in this
behalf:
[Provided that if the information is given by
the woman against whom an offence under
section 326A, section 326B, section 354,
section 354A, section 354B, section 354C,
section 354D, section 376, [section
376A,section 376AB, section 376B, section
376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to
have been committed or attempted, then
such information shall be recorded, by a
woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that–
(a) in the event that the person
against whom an offence under
section 354, section 354A, section
354B,section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, section 376A, section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
is alleged to have been committed or
attempted, is temporarily or
permanently mentally or physically
disabled, then such information shall
be recorded by a police officer, at the
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
residence of the person seeking to
report such offence or at a
convenient place of such person’s
choice, in the presence of an
interpreter or a special educator, as
the case may be;
(b) the recording of such
information shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the
statement of the person recorded by
a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a)
of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as
soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as recorded
under sub-section (1) shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on
the part of an officer in charge of a police
station to record the information referred
to in sub-section (1) may send the
substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of
Police concerned who, if satisfied that
such information discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police
officer subordinate to him, in the manner
provided by this Code, and such officer
shall have all the powers of an officer in
charge of the police station in relation to
that offence.
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
157. Procedure for investigation.–(1)
If, from information received or otherwise,
an officer in charge of a 80 police station
has reason to suspect the commission of
an offence which he is empowered under
section 156 to investigate, he shall
forthwith send a report of the same to a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of such offence upon a police report and
shall proceed in person, or shall depute
one of his subordinate officers not being
below such rank as the State Government
may, by general or special order,
prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the
spot, to investigate the facts and
circumstances of the case, and, if
necessary, to take measures for the
discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that–
(a) when information as to the
commission of any such offence is
given against any person by name
and the case is not of a serious
nature, the officer in charge of a
police station need not proceed in
person or depute a subordinate
officer to make an investigation on
the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in
charge of a police station that there
is no sufficient ground for entering
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
on an investigation, he shall not
investigate the case.
[Provided further that in relation to
an offence of rape, the recording of
statement of the victim shall be
conducted at the residence of the
victim or in the place of her choice
and as far as practicable by a
woman police officer in the presence
of her parents or guardian or near
relatives or social worker of the
locality.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in
clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-
section (1), the officer in charge of the
police station shall state in his report his
reasons for not fully complying with the
requirements of that sub-section, and, in
the case mentioned in clause (b) of the
said proviso, the officer shall also
forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in
such manner as may be prescribed by the
State Government, the fact that he will
not investigate the case or cause it to be
investigated.”
On careful perusal of the above said provisions,
it appears that there are two kinds of FIRs namely,
the FIR can be registered by the informant which
was duly signed by him. Secondly, the FIR can be
registered by the police officer himself on any
information received by him. In both the cases, the
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
information should be reduced into writing and
thereafter, the investigation must be carried out.
16. Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be
termed as a complaint. FIR cannot be registered on
the basis of panchanama, however, in the present
case, the respondent has registered he FIR on the
basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not
proper. The Trial Court ought not to have acted upon
such FIR and cognizance should not have been taken
on the strength of the said FIR. However, the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court have committed error
by considering the said FIR as appropriate and
proper and recorded the conviction. Such conviction
would be rendered as ineffective and the same can
be termed as non est in law.
17. When the registration of FIR itself is void
abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the
judgments are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the
interference by the Revisional Court in setting aside
the concurrent findings is justified.
18. In the light of the observations made
above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated
26.12.2015 and order of
sentence dated 29.12.2015 in
C.C.No.332/2009 on the file of
Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunsur
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
and its confirmation judgment
and order dated 12.01.2021 in
Crl.A.No.12/2016 on the file of
VIII Additional District and
SessionsJudge, Mysuru, Sitting at
Hunsur are set aside.
(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for
the offences punishable under
Sections 32, 34 and 38-A of
Karnataka Excise Act.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any,
stand cancelled.”
10. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact
which is borne out from the material on record that,
except the mahazar dated 05th June, 2021, a
separate/independent report prior to registration of F.I.R.
had not been filed by the respondent and non-filing of the
Police report prior to the registration of F.I.R. would vitiate
the F.I.R., charge sheet and all further proceedings
pursuant thereto as held by this Court in the case of
DAYANANDA @ R. BABU (supra). Under these
circumstances also, the impugned proceedings deserves to
be quashed.
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:26567
CRL.P No. 7202 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Criminal Petition is allowed; and
2) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.
5416/2021 on the file of the Court of III
ACJ and JMFC, Davanagere against the
petitioners for the offences punishable
under Sections 14, 15(1), 29, 32(1), 34, 36,
38(A), 41, 43(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act,1965 and Rule 21(3) of Karnataka Excise
Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 are
hereby quashed;
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
LB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
