Warrantless excise searches require recorded reasons; noncompliance renders ensuing proceedings unsustainable.

On 12 June 2024, police intercepted a car on Om Beach Road, Gokarna, and allegedly seized 93 liquor bottles containing 63 litres and 750 ml from its boot. The police registered Crime No. 49/2024 under Sections 32, 34 and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965; during investigation, the petitioner, a Head Constable, was implicated as accused No. 1.

He sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1593/2024, contending that the search was conducted without a warrant or recorded grounds for proceeding without one, and that the FIR was not registered before the investigation began.

The State relied on Section 54 of the Act and Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967, to support warrantless search powers.

1. Whether the search and seizure were lawful where no warrant was obtained and no reasons for dispensing with a warrant were recorded.

2. Whether the failure to register an FIR before the search and seizure rendered the FIR and consequential proceedings unsustainable.

3. Whether the confiscation proceedings were defective for want of notice and an effective opportunity to make representations.

Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 permits a police officer who has reason to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed to search and seize without a warrant where obtaining one could enable the offender to escape or result in loss of evidence; the officer must record the reasons for dispensing with a warrant.

Rule 2 of the Karnataka Excise (Entry, Inspection and Investigation Authorisation) Rules, 1967 was cited by the State as authorising specified officers to exercise powers under Sections 51 and 54 without a warrant.

The Court also referred to Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., holding that the FIR should have been registered before the investigation proceeded in this case.

It further treated notice and an effective opportunity to make representations as mandatory requirements in the confiscation proceedings.

The Court found that the investigating officer conducted the raid and seized the liquor without first registering an FIR.

It also found that no search warrant had been obtained and no reasons had been recorded for dispensing with one, as required by Section 54. It therefore held the search impermissible and the FIR and ensuing criminal proceedings unsustainable.

As to confiscation, the Court noted that the order had been made without notice or an effective opportunity for the petitioner to respond, and that the vehicle remained in custody while the trial was pending.

Although it identified defects in the confiscation proceedings, the operative order expressly quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.