Karnataka HC Quashes Prosecution Of Two Bar Licensees Over 6.510 Litres Of Alleged Excess Liquor After Raid Without Warrant Or Recorded Grounds

In brief

The question

Whether the search and seizure, conducted without a warrant or recorded reasons for proceeding without one, complied with Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed, insofar as the petitioners were concerned, the proceedings in C.C. No. 1003 of 2019 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC II Court, Dharwad, for offences under Sections 14, 32 and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.

It also directed

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were dismissed as a consequence

01Facts

Acting on information about excess liquor at Ashoka Bar and Restaurant during the 2019 election period, an Excise Officer inspected the premises on 15 March 2019 and seized liquor allegedly exceeding the recorded stock by 6.510 litres.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–5

An FIR was registered and a charge-sheet followed; the petitioners, the bar’s CL-9 licensees, sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 14, 32 and 38A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, contending that the search was conducted without a warrant or recorded grounds for dispensing with one

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–5

02Issues

i.Whether the search and seizure, conducted without a warrant or recorded reasons for proceeding without one, complied with Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 5–9

ii.Whether the proceedings were sustainable where the search and seizure preceded registration of the FIR

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7, 10–11

03Law Applied

Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, requires a search warrant, subject to an exception where the officer has reason to believe an offence is being committed and obtaining a warrant would afford an opportunity for escape or concealment of evidence; in that event, the grounds for the belief must be recorded

p. 6 · ¶ 8

The Court also considered Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967, which authorises specified officers to exercise entry, inspection and warrantless-search powers under Sections 51 and 54, but held that the Rule cannot override Section 54

p. 6 · ¶ 6, 9

It relied on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, concerning registration of an FIR on information disclosing a cognizable offence, and G. Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka and Another, W.P. No. 20816 of 2023 (31 January 2024), for the proposition that commencing investigation without first registering an FIR violates the applicable procedural requirements

p. 5, 7 · ¶ 7, 10

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 154

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Excise Officer searched the premises and seized the liquor without obtaining a warrant and without recording reasons for invoking the warrantless-search exception under Section 54.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–11

It rejected the State’s reliance on Rule 2, holding that the rule could not displace the statutory requirements.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–11

The Court further noted that the raid and seizure preceded registration of the FIR and treated that sequence as inconsistent with the requirement to register an FIR before commencing investigation.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–11

On those grounds, it concluded that the prosecution proceedings were not sustainable

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–11