Documented foreign travel can support Rule 21 protection for liquor possessed for personal consumption.

On 30 April 2013, the Subramanyanagar Excise Police searched the petitioner’s residence and seized 19.150 litres of foreign liquor and wine.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 32 and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965; the charge sheet was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 5315/2014.

The petitioner contended that he and family members had travelled abroad and that the liquor was brought back for personal consumption; he relied on passports and a representation submitted to the Excise Inspector.

The Magistrate rejected his application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. on 16 July 2024, prompting this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the materials on record, including the petitioner’s passports and representation, disclosed a basis to treat the seized liquor as lawfully possessed for personal consumption under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967

2. Whether, in light of those materials, continuation of the proceedings under Sections 32 and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act would amount to an abuse of the process of court

Section 32 and Section 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, were the charged provisions. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967, provides that no permit or licence is required for possession or transport of specified quantities of liquor, including 9.1 litres of imported foreign liquor and 9.0 litres of wine.

The Court considered the discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of court.

The Court treated the passports and the petitioner’s representation as corroborating his account that he had travelled abroad and acquired liquor for personal consumption.

Although the seized quantity was 19.150 litres, the Court found that the seizure from a showcase in the petitioner’s home, together with the travel documents, supported his explanation; it found no material indicating possession for sale or unlawful import or export.

It therefore held that Rule 21’s protection applied and that the prosecution should not continue. The State’s contention that the petitioner’s daughter was under 21 was noted, but the Court’s reasoning rested on the overall documentary material and the absence of evidence of commercial purpose.