Karnataka High Court
V Chitti Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 11.03.2026
R
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8163 OF 2026 (GM -RES)
BETWEEN:
V.CHITTI BABU
S/O V.VARADARAJULU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.154, 3RD CROSS,
GIRINAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 085
PARTNER OF LEGACY BREWING COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE,
MM ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
2
2. NAVEEN M.S.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION,
RR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 98.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 05/0SHO26 REGISTERED
IN CRIME NO.69/2026, DATED 05/03/2026 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1-RAJARAJESHWARI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT,
1986 AND SECTION 36(1)(g) OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT,
1965, ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, QUA THE PETITIONER, VIDE
ANNEXURE A; B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.03.2026 ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE AFORE STATED FIR IS REGISTERED, QUA THE
PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE B; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2026, IN CASE
NO. NC 79/2026 PASSED BY THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN GRANTING PERMISSION
UNDER SECTION 174(2) OF THE BNSS ACT, TO THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE BY REGISTERING FIR, QUA
THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE C.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question a crime
in Crime No.69 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under
Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('Excise Act' for
short) and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri Sharath S.Gowda, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:-
3.1. The petitioner, a partner in Legacy Brewing Company, a
Company registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008 is drawn as accused No.1 in the present proceedings. The
facts that led to the petitioner being drawn as accused No.1 are
that on a particular day i.e., 31-01-2026 a boy named Reyan Jacob,
a juvenile, is said to have died in his apartment. A case is
4
registered as an unnatural death in UDR No.4 of 2026. During the
course of investigation of suicidal death of the boy, as afore-noted,
it comes to light that, commission of suicide by falling from the 7th
floor of the apartment was on consumption of liquor in Legacy
Brewing Company, Rajarajeshwarinagar. Therefore, a suo-motu
complaint comes to be registered on 01-02-2026 alleging offences
punishable under Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act and Section 77
of the Act. On the said complaint a crime in Crime No.32 of 2026
comes to be registered.
3.2. Both these offences being non-cognizable, the crime
could not have been registered without at the outset taking
permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate as obtaining
under Section 174(2) of the BNSS or Section 155(2) of the earlier
regime of the IPC. The act of registration of crime in Crime No.32 of
2026 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.3613 of
2026. This Court disposed of the petition on 05-02-2026 quashing
the proceedings on the ground that permission of the learned
Magistrate was imperative prior to registration of the crime. In the
said order, liberty was reserved to the State to act in accordance
5
with law. The State then, in exercise of the liberty so granted,
registered a complaint again on 04-03-2026 as NCR 79 of 2026 and
while drawing up a non-cognizable report, seeks permission of the
learned Magistrate for registration of crime. The learned Magistrate
permits registration of crime in terms of his order dated
05-03-2026. Pursuant to the permission so granted, the crime is
now registered for the very offences that had been registered
earlier against the petitioner. The petitioner is back at the doors of
this Court, calling in question registration of the subject crime in
Crime No.69 of 2026, for it having been registered on 05-03-2026.
4. The learned counsel Sri Sharath S.Gowda appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the order of the learned
Magistrate in granting permission suffers from non-application of
mind and is in complete violation of plethora of judgments rendered
by coordinate Benches including the judgment of the coordinate
Bench in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 Kar.630. He would further take this
Court through the bill appended to the petition to contend that what
was offered to the boy who was accompanied by students and died
6
later did not contain serving of liquor. It is his case that liquor was
carried by 15 years old student along with other students of the
same age in his bag. They go under the table empty the liquor into
glasses, consume it and goes outside the Legacy Brewing Company
and, therefore, the petitioner or the staff members are not aware of
what they had consumed. It is a Brewing Company where families
come and children also would come, but liquor is not served to
persons below 18 years of age. The incident now reported has not
happened on account of serving of liquor by the petitioner, but on
own volition. It may be that outside he might have consumed more
liquor. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that what the Act punishes is for serving of liquor and not
consumption of liquor.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State submits that upto 6.30 in the evening the
boy along with others stayed in the brewery, goes to the apartment
i.e., his house and at 9.40 p.m. falls from the 7th floor of the
building and dies. The post-mortem report of the boy is indicative of
the fact that there was presence of alcohol in his body and the
7
reason was consumption of alcohol in the Legacy Brewing
Company. The boy being in Legacy Brewing Company is an
admitted fact upto 6.30 p.m. Whether he has gone to the house
directly or not is a matter of investigation. The story twined by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that boys took the liquor out of
the bag, mixed with it something and consumed are all a matter of
investigation. The only ground on which the earlier petition was
allowed was, there was no permission taken from the hands of the
learned Magistrate for registration of the crime. Therefore, the
process had been redone right from the stage of furnishing the
complaint to the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned
Magistrate is in detail and cannot be construed to be suffering from
non-application of mind. He seeks dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A boy by name
Reyan Jacob along with his friends visited the Brewing Company.
8
The Company which runs a brewery in the name and style of
'Legacy Brewing Company'. It is in public domain that it can
entertain 4000 and odd guests at any given point in time.
Therefore, it is a huge brewery. The boys enter, secure seats and
alleged to have consumed alcohol. The subject of the present lis is
15 years old boy, who could not have been allowed inside a
brewery or permitted consumption of liquor or even served any
liquor. The boy after consumption of liquor goes back to his house
and falls from 7th floor of the apartment of the same area. It was
treated as suicide and UDR No.4 of 2026 was registered. From the
investigation prior to registration of UDR, it was noticed, that the
boy along with other boys of the same age consumed alcohol in the
petitioner's Legacy Brewing Company. The CCTV footage disclosed
that the boy did consume alcohol in the brewery. The reason for his
death may be manifold, including consumption of alcohol. The issue
is, how a boy of 15 years old being given entry into a Legacy
Brewing Company and he having consumed alcohol has gone
unchecked.
9
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what
was served to these boys were: (i) Ghee Roast Chicken; (ii) Loaded
Nachos; (iii) Onion Ring; (iv) Vedica Water Bottle 1 liter and
(v) Classic Ice Burst and not any liquor. The liquor was brought by
them in the bag surreptitiously and have drunk. The petitioner has
also placed a photograph of the CCTV footage of the boys sitting
together at 18.51 hours. Therefore, the boys were in the brewery at
18.51 hours on 31-01-2026. The time at which the boys left the
brewery is not known. The picture only shows that it is 18.51 hours
when they were in the brewery.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously
contended that the order of the learned Magistrate is bereft of
reasons in granting permission. The first registration of crime was
admittedly without any permission being taken from the hands of
the learned Magistrate, notwithstanding the fact that the offences
alleged were non-cognizable. This Court had quashed registration
of crime on the score that no permission was taken, but liberty was
reserved to the State to act in accordance with law. The order of
10
the Court quashing the earlier proceedings and reserving liberty
reads as follows:
".... .... ....
10. In the light of the law being clear, the petition
deserves to succeed, however, reserving liberty to the State to
take action, in accordance with law.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
[I] Writ Petition is allowed.
[II] Proceedings in Crime No.32 of 2026 pending on the
file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore City, qua the petitioner
stands quashed.
[III] Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
accordance with law.”
The crime stood quashed. Liberty, as observed, was granted. The
State then generates a requisition on 4-03-2026 quoting the order
of this Court that the earlier requisition would be of no avail, as the
crime has been quashed. The requisition reads as follows:
” ೇದ ೆ:
ಾಜ ಾ ೇಶ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಕತ ವ ವ ಸು!"ರುವ #ಎ ಐ ನ&ೕ'
ಎಂ.ಎ ಆದ ಾನು ೕಡು!"ರುವ ವರ+ ಎ ೆಂದ ೆ,
ಾನು ಾಜ ಾ ೇಶ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ #ಎ ಐ ಆ, ಕತ ವ ವ ಸು!"ದು-, ಈ
+ವಸ ೇಕ/ ಾ’ ರವರು ಾ ೆ0ೆ 1ಾಜ ಾ, ತನ2 ಮಗ ಾದ ೆ4ಾ’ ೆಕ/ 15 ವಷ ರವರು
+ ಾಂಕ:31.01.2026 ರಂದು ಾ!6 ಸು7ಾರು 21:40 ಗಂ8ೆಯ ತಮ9 1ಾ &:ಾಸದ ಮಂ!6
11ಆ¯ÉàöÊ£ï ಅ<ಾ= >ಂ=ನ 7 ೇ ಮಹ@Aಂದ Bದು-, ಮೃತಪEFರುವGHಾ, ದೂರು ೕ@ದು-, ಸದ
ದೂರನು2 J ೕಕ ಾ ಾ ಯು.@.ಆK ನಂ.04/2026 ಕಲಂ 194 Bಎ’ಎ ಎ ೕMಾ ದೂರು
Hಾಖಲು 7ಾ@ ತ Oೆ Pೈ0ೊಂ@ರುMೆ”ೕ ೆ.
ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oಾ Pಾಲದ ಮೃತ ೆ4ಾ’ ೆಕ/ನ Sೆ2ೕ ತ ಾದ + &Tನನು2 &Uಾರ
7ಾಡVಾ,, + ಾಂಕ:31.01.2026 ರಂದು ಸಂ ೆ ಸು7ಾರು 18:30 ಗಂ8ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ಾನು
ಮತು” ನನ2 Sೆ2ೕ ತ ಾದ ೆ4ಾ’ ೆಕ/, ಅಥವ , Pಾ! X ೆ@Y ಇತರರು ಒEF0ೆ Sೇ VೆಗJ\
©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ 1ೋ,Hಾ-, ಅ ಮಧ <ಾನ ಮತು” ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾ@ದು-, ನಂತರ ೆ4ಾ’
ೆಕ/ನನು2 ಆತನ 1ಾ &:ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ0ೆ ಆ8ೋದ ಕ ೆದುPೊಂಡು 1ೋ, BಟುF ಬಂ+ರುವGHಾ,
!aJರುMಾ” ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು + &T 7ಾ ! >ೕ ೆ0ೆ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ+-ನ ಲಗJ\ B6&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ
1ೋ, ಅ ದ- JJE& ದೃbಾ ವaಗಳನು2 ಪ dೕ ಸVಾ, ಮೃತ ೆ4ಾ’ ಜಕ/ 1ಾಗೂ ಆತನ
Sೆ2ೕ ತರು ಸದ VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ 1ೋ, ಅ ಮಧ <ಾನ ಮತು” ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾ@ರುವGದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ+ರುತ”Hೆ.
ಸದ ಹುಡುಗರು ಅ<ಾ6ಪ” eಾಲಕ ಾ,ದು-, ಅವರುಗಳ ವಯJ\ನ ಬ0ೆf ಖgತಪ@JPೊಳhHೆ
ಅವ 0ೆ ಮಧ <ಾನ/ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾಡಲು ಅವPಾಶ 7ಾ@PೊಟುF ಯಮ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ 7ಾ@ರುವ
VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ 7ಾ ೕಕರು ಮತು” Jಬkಂ+ಗಳ &ರುದl ಸೂಕ” Pಾನೂನು PÀæªÀÄ Pೈ0ೊಳhಲು
+ ಾಂಕ:01.02.2026 ರಂದು ೕ@ದ ವರ+ >ೕ ೆ0ೆ ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ
ACT & 36(1)(J) KEACT ೕMಾ ಪ6ಕರಣ Hಾಖ J ತ Oೆ Pೈ0ೊಳhVಾ,ತು” ಆದ ೇ + ಾಂಕ:
03.02.2026 ರಂದು ಪ6ಕರಣದ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ#4ಾದ VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ 7ಾ ೕಕರದ gEF
eಾಬು ರವರು ತಮ9 &ರುದl HಾಖVಾ,ದ- ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆ0ೆ ತnೆ4ಾoೆಯನು2 ೕಡುವಂMೆ Pೋ
7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ = #Eಷ’ ನಂ. 3613/2026 ರ ಅr ಯನು2
ಸ JPೊಂ@ರುMಾ” ೆ.
ನಂತರ + ಾಂಕ: 05-02-2026 ರಂದು 7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ = #Eಷ’ ನಂ.
3613/2026 ರ &Uಾರ ೆ ನnೆದು ಈ PೆಳಕಂಡಂMೆ ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುತ”Hೆ.
ORDER
[I] Writ Petition is allowed.
[II] Proceeding in Crime No 32/2026 pending on the file of
the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore City, qua the petitioner stands quashed.
[III] Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
accordance with law.
12
>ೕಲsಂಡ ತ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ#0ೆ ಸಂಬಂ+JದಂMೆ ಉVೇಖ-2 ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆಯನು2
ನnೆಸದಂMೆ ಪ6ಕರಣವನು2 ವ ಾ0ೊaJ ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುತ”Hೆ.
ಆದ- ಂದ 7ಾನ ಉಚu ಾ 4ಾಲಯವG ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT
& 36(1)(J) KEACT PೇJನ ಎ1. ಆ ೋ#0ೆ ಸಂಬಂvJದಂMೆ ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026
ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT & 36(1)(J) KEACT ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆಯನು2 ನnೆಸದಂMೆ ಪ6ಕರಣವನು2 ವ ಾ
0ೊaJರುತ”Hೆ. ಸದ ಆHೇಶದ Liberty is reserved to the State to take action
in accordance with law JA§ÄzÁV ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುವGದ ಂದ ಅ<ಾ6ಪ” ವಯJ\ನ eಾಲಕರು
/ ಮಕsa0ೆ ವಯJ\ನ ದೃwೕಕರಣದ ಬ0ೆf ಪ ಶdೕ ಸHೆ VೆಗJ\ eೆ6&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ ಮಧ <ಾನ
1ಾಗೂ ದೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾಡಲು ಅವPಾಶ 7ಾ@PೊEFರುವ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ &ರುದl ಸೂಕ” Pಾನೂನು ೕMಾ
ಕ6ಮ Pೈ0ೊಳxhವಂMೆ ತಮ9 Pೋ PೊಳxhMೆ”ೕ ೆ. ಇದ ೊಂ+0ೆ 7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ =
#Eಷ’ ನಂ.3613/2026ರ ಆHೇಶದ ಪ6!ಯನು2, ಯು.@.ಆK ನಂ.04/2026ರ ಪ6! ಮತು” ಈ ಂHೆ
Hಾಖಲು 7ಾ@ದ- ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT & 36(1)(J) KE ACT
ಎy.ಐ.ಆK ಪ6!ಯನು2 ಲಗ!”JರುMೆ”ೕ ೆ.
ಸ /-
(ನ&ೕ’ ಎಂ.ಎ ) #ಎ
+ ಾಂಕ:-04-03-2026 ರಂದು ಾ ಾ PSI ನ&ೕ’ M.S ರವರು ೕ@ದ ವರ+ಯ >ೕ ೆ0ೆ
ಾ ಾ NCR No 79/2026 ರ ನಮೂದು7ಾ@ರುMೆ”ೕ ೆ
ಸ /-”
The requisition was to grant permission to register a crime. This is
answered by the learned Magistrate on 05-03-2026 by the following
order:
“NC No.79/2026
Dated: 05-03-2026
ORDER
The R.R. Nagar Police submitted requisition. Received
requisition along with acknowledgment in NC No.79 of 2026 and
First Information Statement through WPC No.19468 of R.R.
13Nagar Police Station on 05-03-2026 at 12.00 p.m. in Open
Court.
The SHO of R.R. Nagar Police has referred the First
Informant to me with requisition. The First informant by name
Naveen M.S., PSI, R.R. Nagara Police Station is present.
I have gone through the contents of the requisition,
acknowledgment in NC No.79 of 2026 and First Information
statement. Along with said documents the first informant
produced the copy of order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in W.P.No.3613 of 2026, wherein the earlier FIR in Crime No.32
of 2026 is quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. It is
submitted that liberty was given to the State to take action in
accordance with law. It is submitted that since the alleged
offences were non-cognizable and FIR has been registered
without the permission of the Magistrate, the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka quashed the FIR. As per the said order the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka reserved the liberty to State to take
action in accordance with law. Now, the IO referred the first
informant along with First Information statement and
acknowledgment in NCR No.79 of 2026.
The averments of First Information statement prima facie
constitute the necessary ingredients of Section 36(1) of
Karnataka Excise Act and u/s 77 of JJ Act. According to the First
Information statement the accused persons being the license
holder against the conditions of the license sells liquor to a child
who is under 18 years of age. Hence, I feel that, it is a fit case
to be investigated. There is a ground to permit the Police Officer
to take up the investigation for the alleged office. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 174(2) of BNSS the SHO of R.R.
Nagar Police is permitted to investigate the case in accordance
with law.
Issue intimation to SHO of RR Nagar Police Station.”
14
A perusal at the earlier requisition and the present requisition bears
no difference. It is verbatim similar, except quoting the order
passed by this Court. The contention that the order of the learned
Magistrate does not bear application of mind is also untenable, as
the order of the learned Magistrate does bear application of mind,
which is enough for granting permission to register a crime and
take up investigation. It is not necessary that the Magistrate should
undertake a roving enquiry at the time of grant of permission to
register a crime. Therefore, the said submission that it bears no
application of mind stands repelled.
10. The next limb of submission that falls for consideration is,
whether the facts of the case would warrant investigation or
otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under
Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act and Section 77 of the Act.
Section 36(1)(g) reads as follows:
“36. Penalty for misconduct of licensee, etc.- (1)
Whoever, being the holder of a licence or permit granted under
this Act, or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his
behalf,-
… … …
15
(g) sells or gives any intoxicant to any child apparently
under eighteen years of age or permits or suffers such child or
remain in or on the premises where any excisable article is sold,
or manufactured; or”
Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act, in unmistakable terms, provides
that a license holder, who sells or gives any intoxicant to a child
apparently under 18 years of age or permits or suffers such child to
remain in the premises where liquor and or intoxicants are sold or
manufactured, renders himself liable for penal consequences. The
sweep of the provision is not confined merely to the act of
sale, it extends equally to tolerance and permission, passive
or active. The statutory command, is thus, both preventive
and prohibitory in character. The legislative intent is clear. A
licensee having been entrusted with the privilege of dealing
in intoxicants bears a corresponding and higher duty of
vigilance. The law casts upon him, not merely an obligation
to refrain from serving minors, but also duty to ensure that
minors do not remain in the premises where intoxicants are
sold or manufactured. Section 77 of the Act reads as follows:
“77. Penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child.–
Whoever gives, or causes to be given, to any child any
intoxicating liquor or any narcotic drug or 35 tobacco products
16or psychotropic substance, except on the order of a duly
qualified medical practitioner, shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to a fine which may extend up to one lakh
rupees.”
Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act is even more stringent.
It declares that whoever gives or causes to be given to any
child intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug, tobacco product or a
psychotropic substance, except under medical prescription,
the rigour of the provision is unmistakable. The protection
of children from exposure to intoxicants.
11. When the order of the learned Magistrate is examined on
the touchstone of whether there existed prima facie material to
permit investigation, the answer is self evident. It is undisputed
that the boy, aged 15 years, was present within the premises of the
Brewery. The presence of alcohol in his body as disclosed by the
post-mortem examination, is a matter borne out by record.
Whether the intoxicated was served, facilitated, tolerated or
consumed in some clandestine manner is not a question that can be
17
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is a
matter that squarely falls within the domain of investigation.
12. The very fact that boys of underage were permitted entry
into a Brewery, premises dedicated to the sale and manufacture of
excisable articles raises serious concerns. If it is contended that
the liquor was consumed without the knowledge of the staff or
management, that contention itself necessitates enquiry. It is an
admitted norm that liquor from outside is not permitted within such
Establishments, like that of the petitioner. If minors could carry
intoxicants inside, evade detection and consume them unchecked
demands scrutiny. The scrutiny – investigation. Investigation
therefore becomes imperative to ascertain how underage
individuals gained entry without age verification; whether
any mechanism existed to scrutinize identification of
documents; whether supervisory safeguards were in place
and whether statutory obligations cast upon the licensee
were discharged with the vigilance the law demands.
18
13. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the broader
implications. Breweries and similar Establishments, which
have proliferated in urban spaces must initiate rigorous age
verification protocols, be it through Aadhar or other valid
identification, at threshold of entry and further verification
should follow, when liquor is ordered by persons who appear
youthful or underage. The Breweries or the places where alcohol
is being sold cannot be complacent. Age verification cannot be
a perfunctory ritual, it must be a living practice by display of
conspicuous warnings by insistence upon documentary
proof. When minors gain entry and order for intoxicants,
whether overtly served or covertly consumed, the
Management of such Establishments cannot show their
hands off, in indifference. The protection of youth is not
merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative. The
Managements of the places would be held accountable for
any lapses.
14. Insofar as the present case is concerned, whether the
unfortunate death is casually linked to consumption of alcohol is, at
19
this juncture, a matter of investigation. The presence of alcohol in
the body of the deceased cannot be brushed aside. The material on
record discloses sufficient ground to permit investigation. This is
not a case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS ought to be exercised to stifle proceedings at their very
inception. To interdict investigation at this stage would be
premature and unwarranted.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition,
the petition stands dismissed.
Interim order of any kind if operating shall stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
