MAHANANDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash FIR No. 206 of 2008, registered for offences punishable under Sections 13, 14, 32 and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). As per the averments of first information, on 24-7-2008 at about 12.30 in the noon, the complainant/Excise Inspector of Tiptur Sub-Division visited the wine shop of petitioner namely "Suma Liquors" situate in Tiptur Town and found: (i) that unauthorised person was selling liquor; (ii) bill book was not produced; (iii) accounts were not maintained; (iv) discrepancy between entries in the stock book and physical stock; and (v) liquor being sold in lose quantities.

(2.) The learned Counsel for petitioner relying on a decision in the case of K.L. Subbayya v. State of Karnataka., 1979 AIR(SC) 711 , would submit that search conducted by an officer, without recording of the grounds for his belief that an offence under the Act was likely or being committed would vitiate entire proceedings and investigation of first information would be abuse of process of law. The averments of first information accepted at their face value do not constitute offences alleged against petitioner.

(3.) The learned HCGP would submit that under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules'), any Excise Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Excise has been authorised to inspect any shop. What was conducted on 24-7-2008 was only inspection. There was neither search nor seizure of liquor. In the circumstances, Section 54 of the Act is not attracted.