Karnataka High Court
Sri Munichandra R vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
CRL.P No. 7363 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7363 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNICHANDRA R
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O RANGADAMAPPA.G,
R/AT NO.43/2, 3RD MAIN,
KEMPAIAH BLOCK,
NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
KRISHNAPPA GARDEN, J.C. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
ADUGODI RANGE, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally ...RESPONDENT
signed by
CHANDANA (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
BM
Location:
High Court THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
of
Karnataka PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER AND QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.61/2022/23/42061E/420606 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-
INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ADUGODI RANGE, BANGALORE DISTRICT,
AGAINST THE PETITIONER NOW THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE
COMPLETED INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE SHEET LAID WHICH IS
NUMBERED IN C.C.NO.35132/2023 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE
X ADDL. CJM, MAYOHALL UNIT AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 11, 14, 32, 38(A), 43 OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
CRL.P No. 7363 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner-accused No.1 seeks quashing of
the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.35132/2023 on the file of the
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32,
38A and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused
the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the contentions urged in the
petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that before conducting the impugned search
and seizure on 11.04.2023, whereby, the respondent is alleged to
have seized the liquor bottles from the petitioner, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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 petitioner 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 petitioner invited my
attention to the impugned F.I.R. and charge sheet in order to point
out that before registering the F.I.R., it was incumbent upon the
respondents to file a report. In this regard, it is submitted that,
except conducting search and seizure on 11.04.2023 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 petitioner 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
EXCISE POLICE STATION, HUNSURU in Criminal Petition
No.10259 of 2021 disposed of on 22nd March, 2024.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and
that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that
before conducting the impugned search and seizure, whereby, the
alleged liquor bottles from the petitioner 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
JMFC, Hunsur, arising out of Crime No.14/2019-
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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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, 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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 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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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, 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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 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:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
"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 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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
officer, at the 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.
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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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 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 information should be
reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be
carried out.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
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 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."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19319
HC-KAR
10. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact which is
borne out from the material on record that, except the mahazar
dated 11.04.2023, 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.
11. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed
(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.
No.35132/2023 on the file of the X Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, against the petitioner for
the offences punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32, 38A
and 43 of the Karnataka Excise Act are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
