SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY v. SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA WINE STORE

TERAKANAMBI POLICE THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.2) IN C.C.NO.180/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT AND SEC. 188 OF IPC AND SEC. 51(b) OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005. IN CRL.P NO. 645/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CL-2 LICENSEE PROP: SRI DISHA WINE STORE TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET R/AT NO. 209, ‘E’ BLOCK, 9th MAIN VIJAYANAGAR 3rd STAGE MYSORE – 570 017. (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR AND: TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 (TERAKANAMBI POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST.) (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) ...RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1941/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC GUNDLUPET, JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL CIVIL CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.32, 34, 36(1)(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT. (ACCUSED NO.2) IN CRL.P NO. 693/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CL-2 LICENSEE PROP: SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA WINE STORE BOMMALAPURA VILLAGE GUNDLUPET, R/AT NO. 209 ‘E’ BLOCK, 9TH MAIN VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE HC-KAR MYSORE – 570 017. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: TERAKAMBI POLICE BY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) ...RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1375/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE GUNDLUPET, PRL.CIVIL CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND 36(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 188 IPC AND SECTION 51(B) OF THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT. (ACCUSED NO.2) J.M.F.C JUDGE AND IN CRL.P NO. 703/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS CL-2 LICENSEE DISHNA WINES STORE TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS ...PETITIONER R/AT NO. 209, ‘E’ BLOCK 9TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE MYSORE – 570 017. (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) ...RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1593/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JMFC GUNDLUPET, JUDGE AND CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND SEC. 188 OF IPC AND SEC. 51(b) OF THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 36(b) KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT. (ACCUSED NO.2) IN CRL.P NO. 772/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS CL-2 LICENSEE PROP: SRI LAKSHMI HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS VENKATESHWARA WINE STORE BOMMALAPURA VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET R/AT NO. 209, ‘E’ BLOCK, 9TH MAIN VIJAYANAGARA 3RD STAGE MYSORE – 570 017. (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) ...RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN (TERAKANAMBI POLICE IN CR.NO.0055/2021) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1374/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND SEC. 36(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, SEC. 188 OF IPC AND 51(b) OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT. (ACCUSED NO.2) IN CRL.P NO. 821/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE G.R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS CL-2 LICENSEE DISHA WINES STORE TERAKANAMBI VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK R/AT NO.209, ‘E’ BLOCK, 9TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE MYSORE – 570 017. (BY SRI B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: TERAKANAMBI POLICE BY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) ...RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS THE IN PETITIONER C.C.NO.1592/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JMFC, GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 32, 34 AND 36(1)(b) OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, FILED BY TERAKANAMBI POLICE IN CR.NO.61/2004. (ACCUSED NO.2) JUDGE AND THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER These petitions are preferred by accused No.2 in all the crimes, challenging different crimes registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, Section 188 of the IPC as also the offences under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2. Heard Sri B.N.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On 12.05.2021 claiming to have received certain information that accused No.1 is selling liquor at Bommalapura without obtaining valid licence and had recovered 92 tetra packets containing 90ml of whiskey from accused No.1. Alleging that the said liquor was purchased from the petitioner's wine store and was selling the same at higher price. Crimes come to be registered against the owner of the SLV Wine Store and petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Post investigation, the police file their charge sheets in all the crimes registered HC-KAR - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS against the petitioner and other accused for the afore-quoted offences. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act along with other offences as afore-quoted. The petitioner, common in all the petitions is challenging the charge sheet so filed against him in the subject petitions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would vehemently contend that the search and seizure of liquor can only happen at the hands of the police attached to the Excise Department and not by the regular police. Merely because, the offence under Section 188 of the IPC or Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act is invoked, it would not give any power to the regular police to search and seize the liquor. Apart from that fact, learned counsel for petitioner - accused No.2 has valid license to sell liquor. If accused No.1 has purchased it and is selling them on higher prices, it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in the offences. If the petitioner did not have valid license, it was a circumstance altogether different. Learned counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings in all the petitions. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR

5. Per contra, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State would vehemently refute the submissions contending that these six cases involve close to 298 packets of 90ml liquor/whiskey. Accused No.1 was caught selling whiskey/liquor procured from the store’s of accused No.2. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. With regard to the jurisdictional police having jurisdiction or otherwise, to search and seize the liquor, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the position of law.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is accused No.2, holder of CL2 license and running a wine shop in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Wine Store. Accused No.1 is said to have procured valid license. The issue is not with regard to accused No.2 , the present petitioner having valid license or otherwise. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR

8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a license holder and selling liquor in the aforesaid shop. Accused No.1 buys liquor from the shop of petitioner - accused No.2 during COVID and sells the said liquor in tetra packs, which he has procured in tetra packs on higher prices. He was caught by the regular police and revealed that liquor was purchased from the store’s of accused No.2, the petitioner. It become crimes for the aforesaid offences.

9. As aforesaid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a threshold bar for jurisdictional police to search and seize or confiscate liquor and which has to be done by the police attached to the Excise department, a notification to that effect is in place for the last two decades issued by the State. The notification reads as follows. “Sl. No. 77. NOTIFICATION No. FD 16 PES 2007, Bangalore, dated 20th June, 2007 Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary No. 1012, dated 20-6-2007 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 52 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and in supersession of the Government Notification No. HD 64 PES 70, dated 24-5-1971, the Government of Karnataka hereby empowers Officers of the Police Department not below the - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police and Officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Tahsildar for the purpose of the said sub-section to control, detect, investigate and charge-sheet in the Court of Law, the excise offences committed by persons other than the licence holders and unauthorised persons under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and rules framed thereunder.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted notification is unequivocal that a Sub- Inspector of Police and Officers of Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar to act for the purpose of control, detect, investigate and file charge sheet in the Court of law, qua the excise offence. In that light, it is an admitted fact that such an seizure has happened at the hands of the regular police or the jurisdictional police and not the police attached to the Excise department created for tackling excise offences.

10. Apart from that fact, the petitioner is the owner of the liquor store. It is not that he is selling without license, he is holding the license for selling the liquor. If any person purchases liquor and sells it for a higher price, it is understandable as to how the petitioner can be hauled into web of proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 32 - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The other offence that is alleged is the one punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, for which, the procedure stipulated under Section 51 is necessarily to be followed. What is the procedure and its interpretation need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

11. This Court in the case of D.K. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 226, has held as follows:

7. The afore-narrated facts are not dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 51(b) of the Act. To consider the said issue, it is germane to notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 51 of the Act deals with punishment for obstruction and reads as follows: "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.—(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause— —(1) Whoever, without reasonable cause—" (a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. notes on clauses Clauses 51 to 58 (Secs. 51 to 58) seeks to lay down what will constitute an offence in terms of obstruction of the functions under the Act, false claim for relief, misappropriation of relief material or funds, issuance of false warning, failure of an officer to perform the duty imposed on him under the Act without due permission or lawful excuse, or his connivance at contravention of the provisions of the Act. The clauses also provide for penalties for these offences. (Emphasis supplied) Section 51(b) of the Act directs that whoever would refuse to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government, as the case would be, become an offence under the Act.

8. Section 60 of the Act deals with cognizance for the offences and reads as follows: "60. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— (a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid." (Emphasis supplied) - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR Section 60(b) mandates that, if cognizance is to be taken for an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, a person who is arrayed as accused should have been given a notice not less than 30 days in the manner prescribed.

9. The prescription is in terms of the Rules. Rules, i.e. the Disaster Management (notice of alleged offence) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 of the said Rules, reads as follows: "3. Notice of alleged offence and intention to make a complaint .—A notice under clause (b) of section 60 of the Act by a person, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint shall be delivered to, or left at, the office of one of the following— (a) in the case of the Central Government, except where the complaint relates to a railway, the Secretary incharge of the concerned Ministry or the Department in that Government; (b) in the case of the Central Government where the complaint relates to a railway, the General Manager of that railway; (c) in the case of State Government, the Secretary incharge of the concerned Department in that Government; (d) in the case of the National Authority, the Secretary or, is no Secretary, the Additional Secretary, of the National Authority; if there (e) in the case of a State Authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority; (f) in the case of a District Authority, the Chief Executive Officer of the State Authority." (Emphasis supplied) The Rule mandates that a notice under Section 60(b) of the Act by any person should be issued on/of his intention to make a complaint, and that shall be delivered to the person against whom complaint is said to be made. The manner of - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR issuance and delivery are narrated from (a) to (f). Therefore, there is prescription under the Rules as to the action to be taken under Section 60(b) of the Act.

10. On the bedrock of the aforesaid mandate under the Act and the Rules, the case at hand requires to be noticed. The incident takes place on 04.01.2021, around 10.30 a.m. and the crime is registered on 04.01.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Act and Section 188 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate the offence on cognizance of 25.01.2022. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance reads as follows: "Perused the compliant. Complainant is a Public Servant. Hence, recording of Sworn Statement is dispensed with as contemplated u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable is taken cognizance u/s.51(b) of NDA Act. I have perused the documents produced by the complainant and considered the allegation made in the complaint. The allegation are supported by documents and if allegations are not denied the same will lead to the conviction of the accused. There are sufficient materials to issue process against the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER

1. 2. Register the case as CC Issue summons against accused no.1 to 9 for the offence punishable u/s. 51(b) of NDA Act. 3. Call on: 26.02.2021." (Emphasis added) The taking learned Magistrate prior cognizance ought to have noticed the rigor of Section 60(b) as to whether a notice has been issued to the accused in terms of Rule 3 of the said Rules (supra). Ostensibly, the mandate under the Act or the Rules is not followed by the complainant - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:6176 CRL.P No. 691 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 645 of 2024 CRL.P No. 693 of 2024 AND 3 OTHERS HC-KAR and it is not even noticed by the learned Magistrate prior to the taking of cognizance. It is therefore, contrary to law.

11. In the light of it being contrary to law, is resultantly rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability of it, would lead to its obliteration.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of this Court, unequivocal facts and jurisdictional error, as also the violation of procedure stipulated under the Karnataka Excise Act and Disaster Management Act, these petitions deserve to succeed with the obliteration of impugned proceedings.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER I. Criminal petitions are allowed. II. The proceedings in C.C.Nos.80/2022, 1941/2021, 1375/2021, 1593/2021, 1374/2021 and 1592/2021 pending before on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, Chamarajanagar District, impugned in these petitions, stand quashed qua the petitioner. Nvj/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE