Karnataka High Court
K. M. Pratham vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5650 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
K. M. PRATHAM
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K. B. MONNAIAH,
R/AT NO.21, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS ROAD,
AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
SANJAY NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M R C MANOHAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY EXCISE INSPECTOR RANGE-04,
BUD-01 (RAJMAHAL VILAS RANGE),
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K BENGALURU,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. J. LOKESH
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
-2-
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021
ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU POLICE STATION,
HAVERI-581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH., HCGP FOR R1;
R2 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
IN CRIME NO.31/2020-21 REGISTERED BY THE INSPECTOR OF
EXCISE, RANGE-04, BUD-01 (RAJMAHAL VILAS RANGE),
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 14, 32, 38(A) & 43(A) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT,
1965 AND THE CASE IS NOT PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HON'BLE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,
BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
-3-CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021
2. Heard Sri.M.R.C. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
On 09.03.2021, the Anti Corruption Bureau claiming to be on receipt of some incredible information, conducted a search in the house of the petitioner and finding nothing that would become offence punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, informed the Department of Excise that the petitioner was in possession of 34.55 litres of liquor at his house and that would be in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act. It is then the Department of Excise initiates proceedings based upon the search so conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau and registers the crime on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of 34.55 litres -4- CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021 of branded liquor in his house. It is the registration of the crime that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.M.R.C.Manohar, would contend that in terms of Rule 21 of Karnataka Excise (Possession, Transport, Import and Export of Intoxicants) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) one person in a house is entitled to store 9.1 litres of Foreign Liquor and 2.3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and would submit that the members in the house are four and the liquour that was found in the possession of the petitioner was 34.55 litres and therefore, would come within the parameters so laid down under the aforesaid Rule 21 of the Rules.
5. Learned HCGP would however, seek to justify the action of search and contend that the premises could be searched without a warrant in terms of the Act, but is not in a position to dispute that the Rule 21 of the -5- CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021 aforesaid Rules would permit 9.1 litres of liquor to be in possession of a person.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
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 the 2.5 Litres
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
-6-
CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021
4. Country Beer 18.2 litres
5. Brandy, Whisky, Gin, Rum, Milk- 2.3 litres Punch and 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 (imported) 9.1 litres 7. Denatured Spirit 750 mililitres
8. xxxx
9. Wines (including mass wine and 9.0 litres 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 -7- CRL.P No. 5650 of 2021 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.
Sd/-
JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1