SOMANATH KEREBAIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition is before us pursuant to a reference made by a learned Single judge of this Court for an answer to the following question: "whether grounds of belief that an offence has been committed or being committed is sufficient compliance with Section 54 of the Act or in addition to it the Seizing Authority also has to mention his reasons for not obtaining search warrant before conducting search and seizure. " the facts giving rise to the revision petition as also the present reference may in brief be set out first:

(2.) A tanker bearing registration No. 19/1572 was seized by the Excise Inspector at Belgaum on 18. 12. 2000 while the same was transporting 10,000 liters of spirit without any permit or license to do so. Proceedings for the confiscation of the tanker were concluded by the authorized officer in terms of an order dated 30. 6. 2001 by which he directed confiscation of the vehicle in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge at Belgaum in Criminal appeal No. 65/2001 who by his order dated 19. 12. 2001 affirmed the order passed by the authorized officer. Crl. R. P. No. 214/ 2002 was then filed in this Court against the aforementioned orders. This petition came up before S. R. Bannurmath, J. , for hearing. One of the arguments that was urged before the learned Single Judge was that the order of confiscation was bad on account of a total non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 54 of the karnataka Excise Act. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. L. SUBBAYYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, AIR1979 SC 711 , 1979 Crilj651 , 1979 cencus316d , (1979 )2 SCC115 , [1979 ]2 SCR1131 and two Single Bench decisions of this court in L. SRINIVAS v. AUTHORISED OFFICER and SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE ILR 1999 KAR 2872 and S. PATACHIAMUTHI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND anr. Crl. Rev. PTN No. 706/2001 dd. On 26. 2. 02 it was contended that the officer conducting the search was in terms of Section 54 of the Karnataka Excise Act required to record the ground of his belief that an offence under the Excise Act has been, is being or is likely to be committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording to the offender an opportunity to escape or of concealing evidence of the offence. Since the Officer concerned had not complied with the requirement of Section 54, the search and the consequent seizure and confiscation of the tanker was illegal.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge was of the opinion that while Section 54 of the Excise Act required the Officer conducting the search to record grounds of his belief that an offence had been, is being or was likely to be committed before conducting any such search, the said requirement did not extend to recording the reasons why a search warrant could not be obtained without affording to the offender an opportunity to escape. Since that view was contrary to another single bench decision of this Court, the question whether any such requirements existed was referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the same. That is precisely how the matter has been placed before us for an answer the question extracted earlier.