Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vasant Vaman Naik S/O Vaman Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3259
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100110 OF 2018 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VASANT VAMAN NAIK,
S/O. VAMAN NAIK
AGE: 51 YEARS, SHOP BUSINESS,
R/O: PADMAPUR, NAGARABASTIKERI,
TQ: HONAVARA,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581384.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMESH PUTTA MATAGUPPI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580022.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.20
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE
16:40:01 +0530
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
05.04.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS AND DISTRICT JUDGE,
UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.48/2014 IN
RESPECT OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 32, 34 OF
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND 328 OF IPC AND THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED BE ACQUITTED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3259
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/accused, who has been convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka
Excise Act read with Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
and sentenced to undergo six years of imprisonment along with a
fine, has approached this Court in appeal.
2. The prosecution alleges that on 25.09.2013 at around
2:30 p.m., credible information was received that the accused was
selling illicit liquor in his shop. Acting on this information, the
complainant, along with staff and witnesses, conducted an
inspection and discovered that the appellant was in possession of
illicit arrack valued at ₹1,500/-. The illicit liquor was seized in the
presence of panchas, and an FIR was subsequently registered for
the aforementioned offences.
3. To establish its case, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 5, exhibited four documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4(a), and
marked one material object, M.O.1. Upon evaluating the evidence
on record, the Sessions Court found that the prosecution had
proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and
accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
contended that since the alleged offences are cognizable, the
Excise Police were required to register an FIR at the outset or, at
the very least, record the information in the Station House Diary
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3259
before commencing the investigation. He further argued that the
search was conducted without obtaining a warrant, as mandated
under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act. Therefore, the
investigation and subsequent conviction of the appellant stand
vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise
Act.
5. In response, the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the Forensic
Science Laboratory report (Ex.P.4) conclusively established that
the appellant was in possession of illicit arrack. He contended that
the Sessions Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on
record and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence did
not warrant interference.
6. Upon considering the arguments of both parties and
reviewing the trial court record, the key issue for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction
passed by the Sessions Court is legally sustainable?
7. A perusal of the complaint (Ex.P.2) reveals that the
Police Sub-Inspector, Excise Department, received credible
information on 25.09.2013 at about 2:30 p.m. that the accused was
in possession of illicit arrack and intended to sell it for unlawful
gain. Acting on this information, the Excise Police conducted a raid
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3259
on the appellant's shop and found illicit liquor in his possession.
The FIR was registered later that day at 11:15 p.m.
8. Since the offences alleged against the accused are
cognizable, the Excise Police were required to register an FIR or
record the information in the Station House Diary before initiating
the investigation. In cases of exigency--where there is a risk of the
accused escaping or destroying evidence--the information should
be recorded in the Station House Diary. However, in the present
case, no such procedure was followed. Consequently, the
investigation, the subsequent taking of cognizance, and the
conviction of the accused stand vitiated due to non-compliance with
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act grants the
power to conduct a search without a warrant if an officer has
reason to believe that an offence under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36, or
37 has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, and that
obtaining a search warrant may provide an opportunity for the
offender to escape or conceal evidence. However, before
conducting such a search, the officer must record the grounds of
his belief.
10. In the present case, the Assistant Police Inspector,
Excise Department, conducted the search and seizure without
recording any reasons for believing that the accused was likely to
abscond or destroy evidence. This omission renders the search
and seizure invalid for non-compliance with Section 54 of the
Karnataka Excise Act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3259
11. Since the investigation was conducted without first
registering an FIR or recording information in the Station House
Diary in case of exigencies, the entire process is fundamentally
flawed. The non-compliance with these mandatory provisions
strikes at the root of the case, rendering the trial invalid.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
Sessions Judge is legally unsustainable.
ORDER
i) Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of conviction, dated
05.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 06.04.2018,
passed in Sessions Case No.48/2014 by the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar, is hereby set aside, and the
appellant/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid
offences.
iii) The bail bonds executed by the appellant, if any,
stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
KMS
Ct:vh
