Karnataka High Court
Shri N Nagesh Kumar S/O Late H ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:169
CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100002 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SHRI. N. NAGESH KUMAR S/O. LATE H. NAGARAJAIAH
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. FDA RTO OFFICE BALLARI,
R/O. PLOT NO 4, ASSESSMENT NO. 25/A,
VIVEKANAND NAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201,
TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY EXCISE RANGE-I, HOSAPETE,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HOSAPETE-583201,
TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
RPTD BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Location: HIGH
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA PS BALLARI,
B SHELAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BALLARI-583101, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI.
BENCH
Date: 2025.01.10
...RESPONDENTS
12:40:18 +0530 (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.05/2024-25/4508IE/450808 BEFORE
HOSAPETE EXCISE RANGE-I POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE
THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 14, 15, 32 (1), 38(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE
ACT, 1965 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:169
CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT
CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 14, 15, 32(1), and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, "Act, 1965") is challenged in this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1- State.
3. Service of notice to Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.
4. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioner was found in possession of 5.250 liters of whisky, which exceeds the prescribed limit under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import, and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (for short, "Rules, 1967"). Upon conducting a search of the petitioner's house, it was discovered that the petitioner was in possession of the aforementioned quantity of whisky.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's family consists of three members. The respondent has alleged the seizure of 5.250 liters of whisky. However, under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1967, a person is permitted to possess up to 2.3 liters of whisky. When calculated for three family members, the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025 total permissible quantity exceeds the seized amount. Therefore, the liquor allegedly seized from the petitioner's house is within the permissible limit for the petitioner's family.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent - State contended that the determination of whether the petitioner's family possessed whisky within the prescribed limits is a matter that requires investigation. At this preliminary stage, there is no justification to interfere with the registration of the FIR.
7. After considering the arguments advanced by both sides, the following points are noted:
7. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 reads as under:
"21. Case where permit or licence is not required.- No permit or licence, under these rules, shall be required for the possession or transport of the following quantities of liquors.
Liquor Quantity
1. Toddy, in such areas of 2.5 Litres
the State where the
sale of toddy to public
is allowed under sub-
rule (4) of Rule 3 of
the Karnataka Excise
(Tapping of Trees)
Rules, 1991
2. Xxxxx
3. Xxxxx
4. Country Beer 18.2 litres
5. Brandy, Whisky, Gin, 2.3 litres
Rum, Milk-Punch and
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:169
CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025
such other liquors
manufactured in
Karnataka State or
manufactured in other
places in India and
imported to Karnataka
State, excluding
Foreign liquors
(imported)
6. Foreign liquors 9.1 litres
(imported)
7. Denatured Spirit 750
mililitres
8. Xxxx
9. Wines (including mass 9.0 litres
wine and sacramental
wine)
10. Fortified Wine 4.5 litres
8. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The Rules afore quoted clearly permit a person to hold 9.1 litre of liquor in his house. The members of the family of the petitioner, as explained in memorandum of petition are four in number. A four member family in a house, would be entitled to store liquor upto 36.4 litres. The possession of the petitioner is admittedly at 34.55 litres which is within the permissible limit even in terms of the Rules. Therefore, without going into any of the legal contentions that is advanced by the petitioner, it would suffice to allow the petition on the facts obtaining in the case at hand as admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the liquor which was permissible under Rule 21 of the Rules.
For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.31/2020-21 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 32, 38(A) and 43(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 are hereby quashed."-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:169 CRL.P No. 100002 of 2025
8. Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import, and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 ("Rules, 1967") clearly stipulates that an individual is permitted to possess up to 2.3 liters of whisky. In the present case, the petitioner's family comprises three members. Accordingly, each family member is entitled to possess 2.3 liters of whisky, amounting to a total permissible limit of 6.9 liters for the household.
9. The seizure of 5.250 liters of whisky from the petitioner's residence is, therefore, well within the prescribed limit under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1967. Consequently, the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of the Rules, 1967. The continuation of the criminal investigation under these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition stands allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.5/2024-
25/45018IE/450808 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15