Karnataka HC Quashes Excise Case Against Accused 3 After Police Raid Without Warrant, Recorded Reasons Or Prior FIR

In brief

The question

Whether the search and seizure were lawful when the police did not obtain a warrant or record reasons for dispensing with one under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 1437/2026, arising from Old Hubballi Police Station Crime No. 274/2025, for offences under Sections 38A, 32(1) and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, insofar as they concerned accused No. 3, the petitioner.

01Facts

On 30 December 2025, police received information about alleged illegal liquor sales and conducted a raid in Hubballi.

The prosecution alleged that liquor was seized and, during investigation, implicated the petitioner as accused No. 3.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1437/2026, contending that the police had neither obtained a search warrant nor recorded reasons for proceeding without one, and had acted before registering an FIR.

¶ 3–5, 7

The State submitted that Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act authorised a warrantless search and that the FIR had been registered in accordance with Section 51 of the Act.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the search and seizure were lawful when the police did not obtain a warrant or record reasons for dispensing with one under Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act.

¶ 5, 8–9

ii.Whether the failure to register an FIR before proceeding with the investigation into the alleged cognizable offences vitiated the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶ 5, 9

03Law Applied

Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act permits a police officer to search and seize without a warrant where the officer has reason to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed and obtaining a warrant may allow the offender to escape or result in the loss of evidence; the officer must record the reasons for dispensing with a warrant.

¶ 8

The Court further held that, for the alleged cognizable offences, the police were required to follow the procedure under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before proceeding with the investigation.

¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 154

04Reasoning

The Court found that the police had neither obtained a search warrant nor recorded reasons for dispensing with one, and that the record did not show compliance with Section 54’s safeguards.

¶ 9

It also concluded that the police had proceeded with the investigation into cognizable offences without first following the procedure required by Section 154 Cr.P.C. The Court treated these procedural failures, taken together, as vitiating the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶ 7, 9