Karnataka High Court
H L Rajashekar vs State Of Karnataka By on 9 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.278 OF 2018
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.279 OF 2018
BETWEEN
H L RAJASHEKAR
S/O K.R. LAKSHMAN RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.HUNAVALLI VILLAGE
SORABA TLAUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 434 ...COMMON
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G K BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NARASIMHARAJAPURA POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 434
STATE BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. ...COMMON
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THE CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 278 OF 2018 AND 279 OF
2018 ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.293/2017 AND C.C.NO.277/2015
RESPECTIVELY ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJAPURA.
2
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
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,
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 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. 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
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cs
