[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Krishnamurthy vs Terakanambi Police By on 3 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 691 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 645 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 693 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 703 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 772 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 821 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 691/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
Digitally AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
signed by
SANJEEVINI J CL-2 LICENSEE PROP
KARISHETTY
SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA WINE
Location:
High Court of STORE, BOMMALAPURA VILLAGE
Karnataka
GUNDLUPET
R/AT NO. 209, 'E' BLOCK, 9th MAIN
VIJAYANGARA 3rd STAGE
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
TERAKANAMBI POLICE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN C.C.NO.180/2022 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C
GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND
SEC. 188 OF IPC AND SEC. 51(b) OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT
ACT 2005.
IN CRL.P NO. 645/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CL-2 LICENSEE
PROP: SRI DISHA WINE STORE
TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET
R/AT NO. 209, 'E' BLOCK, 9th MAIN
VIJAYANAGAR 3rd STAGE
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
(TERAKANAMBI POLICE STATION
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST.)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN
C.C.NO.1941/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GUNDLUPET,
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.32, 34, 36(1)(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT.
IN CRL.P NO. 693/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CL-2 LICENSEE
PROP: SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA
WINE STORE
BOMMALAPURA VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET, R/AT NO. 209
'E' BLOCK, 9TH MAIN
VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TERAKAMBI POLICE BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN
C.C.NO.1375/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C GUNDLUPET,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND 36(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE
ACT, 188 IPC AND SECTION 51(B) OF THE DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT.
IN CRL.P NO. 703/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
CL-2 LICENSEE
DISHNA WINES STORE
TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
R/AT NO. 209, 'E' BLOCK
9TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN
C.C.NO.1593/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GUNDLUPET,
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND SEC. 188 OF IPC AND SEC.
51(b) OF THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 36(b)
KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT.
IN CRL.P NO. 772/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CL-2 LICENSEE
PROP: SRI LAKSHMI
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
VENKATESHWARA WINE STORE
BOMMALAPURA VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET
R/AT NO. 209, 'E' BLOCK, 9TH MAIN
VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN (TERAKANAMBI
POLICE IN CR.NO.0055/2021) IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN
C.C.NO.1374/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET,
CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND SEC. 36(b) OF KARNATAKA
EXCISE ACT, SEC. 188 OF IPC AND 51(b) OF DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT.
IN CRL.P NO. 821/2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CL-2 LICENSEE
DISHA WINES STORE
TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
R/AT NO.209, 'E' BLOCK, 9TH MAIN
VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE
MYSORE - 570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN
C.C.NO.1592/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET,
CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND 36(1)(b) OF KARNATAKA
EXCISE ACT, FILED BY TERAKANAMBI POLICE IN
CR.NO.61/2004.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
CRL.P No. 691 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024
CRL.P No. 693 of 2024
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
These petitions are preferred by accused No.2 in all the
crimes, challenging different crimes registered against him for
offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka
Excise Act, 1965, Section 188 of the IPC as also the offences
under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
2. Heard Sri B.N.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner
and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for the State.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
On 12.05.2021 claiming to have received certain
information that accused No.1 is selling liquor at Bommalapura
without obtaining valid licence and had recovered 92 tetra
packets containing 90ml of whiskey from accused No.1.
Alleging that the said liquor was purchased from the petitioner's
wine store and was selling the same at higher price. Crimes
come to be registered against the owner of the SLV Wine Store
and petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Post investigation,
the police file their charge sheets in all the crimes registered
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
against the petitioner and other accused for the afore-quoted
offences. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences
under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act along
with other offences as afore-quoted. The petitioner, common
in all the petitions is challenging the charge sheet so filed
against him in the subject petitions.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently
contend that the search and seizure of liquor can only happen
at the hands of the police attached to the Excise Department
and not by the regular police. Merely because, the offence
under Section 188 of the IPC or Section 51(b) of the Disaster
Management Act is invoked, it would not give any power to the
regular police to search and seize the liquor. Apart from that
fact, learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 has valid
license to sell liquor. If accused No.1 has purchased it and is
selling them on higher prices, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is involved in the offences. If the petitioner did not
have valid license, it was a circumstance altogether different.
Learned counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings in
all the petitions.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
5. Per contra, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor for the State would vehemently refute
the submissions contending that these six cases involve close
to 298 packets of 90ml liquor/whiskey. Accused No.1 was
caught selling whiskey/liquor procured from the store's of
accused No.2. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the
petitioner to come out clean. With regard to the jurisdictional
police having jurisdiction or otherwise, to search and seize the
liquor, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is not in a
position to dispute the position of law.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties and
have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
petitioner is accused No.2, holder of CL2 license and running a
wine shop in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara
Wine Store. Accused No.1 is said to have procured valid
license. The issue is not with regard to accused No.2 , the
present petitioner having valid license or otherwise.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a license
holder and selling liquor in the aforesaid shop. Accused No.1
buys liquor from the shop of petitioner - accused No.2 during
COVID and sells the said liquor in tetra packs, which he has
procured in tetra packs on higher prices. He was caught by the
regular police and revealed that liquor was purchased from the
store's of accused No.2, the petitioner. It become crimes for
the aforesaid offences.
9. As aforesaid by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is a threshold bar for jurisdictional police to search
and seize or confiscate liquor and which has to be done by the
police attached to the Excise department, a notification to that
effect is in place for the last two decades issued by the State.
The notification reads as follows.
"Sl. No. 77. NOTIFICATION
No. FD 16 PES 2007, Bangalore, dated 20th June,
2007 Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary No. 1012,
dated 20-6-2007
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (1) of Section 52 of the Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965 and in supersession of the Government
Notification No. HD 64 PES 70, dated 24-5-1971, the
Government of Karnataka hereby empowers
Officers of the Police Department not below the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police and Officers of the
Revenue Department not below the rank of a
Tahsildar for the purpose of the said sub-section to
control, detect, investigate and charge-sheet in the
Court of Law, the excise offences committed by
persons other than the licence holders and
unauthorised persons under the Karnataka Excise
Act, 1965 and rules framed thereunder."
(Emphasis supplied)
The afore-quoted notification is unequivocal that a Sub-
Inspector of Police and Officers of Revenue Department not
below the rank of Tahsildar to act for the purpose of control,
detect, investigate and file charge sheet in the Court of law,
qua the excise offence. In that light, it is an admitted fact that
such an seizure has happened at the hands of the regular police
or the jurisdictional police and not the police attached to the
Excise department created for tackling excise offences.
10. Apart from that fact, the petitioner is the owner of the
liquor store. It is not that he is selling without license, he is
holding the license for selling the liquor. If any person
purchases liquor and sells it for a higher price, it is
understandable as to how the petitioner can be hauled into web
of proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 32
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The other offence
that is alleged is the one punishable under Section 51(b) of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005, for which, the procedure
stipulated under Section 51 is necessarily to be followed. What
is the procedure and its interpretation need not detain this
Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
11. This Court in the case of D.K. SHIVAKUMAR Vs.
STATE reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 226, has held as
follows:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in
dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to
whether the learned Magistrate could have taken
cognizance of the offence under Section 51(b) of
the Act. To consider the said issue, it is germane to
notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 51 of
the Act deals with punishment for obstruction and
reads as follows:
"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.--(1) Whoever,
without reasonable cause-- --(1) Whoever, without
reasonable cause--"
(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central
Government or the State Government, or a person
authorised by the National Authority or State
Authority or District Authority in the discharge of
his functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on
behalf of the Central Government or the State
Government or the National Executive Committee
or the State Executive Committee or the District
Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine, or with both,
and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with
directions results in loss of lives or imminent
danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58
(Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will
constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the
functions under the Act, false claim for relief,
misappropriation of relief material or funds,
issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to
perform the duty imposed on him under the Act
without due permission or lawful excuse, or his
connivance at contravention of the provisions of
the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for
these offences.
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 51(b) of the Act directs that whoever
would refuse to comply with any direction given by
or on behalf of the Government, as the case would
be, become an offence under the Act.
8. Section 60 of the Act deals with cognizance
for the offences and reads as follows:
"60. Cognizance of offences.--No court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by--
(a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the
Central Government, the State Government, the
District Authority or any other authority or officer
authorised in this behalf by that Authority or
Government, as the case may be; or
(b) any person who has given notice of not less than
thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged
offence and his intention to make a complaint to the
National Authority, the State Authority, the Central
Government, the State Government, the District
Authority or any other authority or officer
authorised as aforesaid."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Section 60(b) mandates that, if cognizance is to be
taken for an offence punishable under Section 51 of
the Act, a person who is arrayed as accused should
have been given a notice not less than 30 days in
the manner prescribed.
9. The prescription is in terms of the
Rules. Rules, i.e. the Disaster Management (notice
of alleged offence) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 of the said
Rules, reads as follows:
"3. Notice of alleged offence and intention to make
a complaint .--A notice under clause (b) of section
60 of the Act by a person, of the alleged offence
and his intention to make a complaint shall be
delivered to, or left at, the office of one of the
following--
(a) in the case of the Central Government, except
where the complaint relates to a railway, the
Secretary incharge of the concerned Ministry or
the Department in that Government;
(b) in the case of the Central Government where
the complaint relates to a railway, the General
Manager of that railway;
(c) in the case of State Government, the Secretary
incharge of the concerned Department in that
Government;
(d) in the case of the National Authority, the
Secretary or, if there is no Secretary, the
Additional Secretary, of the National Authority;
(e) in the case of a State Authority, the Chief
Executive Officer of the State Authority;
(f) in the case of a District Authority, the Chief
Executive Officer of the State Authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Rule mandates that a notice under Section
60(b) of the Act by any person should be issued
on/of his intention to make a complaint, and that
shall be delivered to the person against whom
complaint is said to be made. The manner of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
issuance and delivery are narrated from (a) to (f).
Therefore, there is prescription under the Rules as
to the action to be taken under Section 60(b) of the
Act.
10. On the bedrock of the aforesaid mandate
under the Act and the Rules, the case at hand requires to
be noticed. The incident takes place on 04.01.2021,
around 10.30 a.m. and the crime is registered on
04.01.2021 for the offence punishable under Section
51(b) of the Act and Section 188 of the IPC. The learned
Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on
25.01.2022. The order of the learned Magistrate taking
cognizance reads as follows:
"Perused the compliant. Complainant is a Public
Servant. Hence, recording of Sworn Statement is
dispensed with as contemplated u/s.200 of Cr.P.C.
cognizance is taken for the offence punishable
u/s.51(b) of NDA Act.
I have perused the documents produced by
the complainant and considered the allegation
made in the complaint. The allegation are
supported by documents and if allegations are
not denied the same will lead to the conviction of
the accused.
There are sufficient materials to issue process
against the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following order:
ORDER
1. Register the case as CC
2. Issue summons against accused
no.1 to 9 for the offence punishable u/s. 51(b) of
NDA Act.
3. Call on: 26.02.2021."
(Emphasis added)
The learned Magistrate prior to taking
cognizance ought to have noticed the rigor of
Section 60(b) as to whether a notice has been
issued to the accused in terms of Rule 3 of the said
Rules (supra). Ostensibly, the mandate under the
Act or the Rules is not followed by the complainant
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6176
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
and it is not even noticed by the learned Magistrate
prior to the taking of cognizance. It is therefore,
contrary to law.
11. In the light of it being contrary to law, is
resultantly rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability
of it, would lead to its obliteration."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of this Court,
unequivocal facts and jurisdictional error, as also the violation
of procedure stipulated under the Karnataka Excise Act and
Disaster Management Act, these petitions deserve to succeed
with the obliteration of impugned proceedings.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
I. Criminal petitions are allowed.
II. The proceedings in C.C.Nos.80/2022, 1941/2021,
1375/2021, 1593/2021, 1374/2021 and 1592/2021
pending before on the file of the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, Chamarajanagar
District, impugned in these petitions, stand quashed
qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Nvj/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
