Bangalore District Court
Mahesh B Latni, E.I vs H.S. Shivashekhar on 24 July, 2025
Digitally
KABC030007682021 DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 05-01-2021
Registered on : 05-01-2021
Decided on : 24-07-2025
Duration : 4 years, 6 months, 19 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 24th Day of July, 2025
C.C. No.211/2021
Crime No.44/2019-20/04IE/040213
State by Excise Police Station,
Rajajinagara Range,
Bengaluru West. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri H.S.Shivashekar,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Sri Siddegowda,
R/at 4th Main Road,
M.M. Layout,
Kavalbyrasandra,
Bengaluru.
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Permanent address:
Haniyuru, Singarajapura Post,
Channapattana Taluk,
Ramanagara District. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri. Kumara, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 18-02-2020 at 6.40 p.m.
offence
2. Date of FIR 18-02-2020
3. Date of Charge sheet 30-09-2020
4.Name of Complainant Sri Mahesh B Latni,,
Excise Inspector,
Vijayanagara EIB-2,
Bengaluru.
5. Offences complained of Under Section 11, 14, 15,
32(1), 38(A) Karnataka
Excise Act.
6. Date of framing of 19-01-2022
charges
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 23-11-2022
of evidence
2
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
9. Date of Judgment is 24-07-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 24-07-2025
11. Final Order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Excise Sub-Inspector of Rajajinagara Range,
Bengaluru submitted charge sheet against accused
for the offences punishable under Section 11, 14,
32(1), 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 18-02-2020 at about
6.40 p.m., near Shivananda Circle, Opposite
Rajkamal Hotel, Race Course Road, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru, the accused was in illegal possession of
defence liquor bottles totalling to 5.250 liters in
excess of quantity and transporting in his Honda
Active vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-04 EN-3212
thereby accused committed the alleged offences.
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of
credible information, CW1/PW1 -Sri Mahesh B Latni
Excise Inspector along with his staff conducted raid
3
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
at Shivananda circle, Sheshadripura Road and
seized the liquor and vehicle through Ex.P3 mahazar
and filed complaint as per Ex.P1, registered FIR as
per Ex.P2. After registration of FIR, he sent the
seized bottles for examination, after obtained
permission as per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, the remaining
liquor has been destroyed and the vehicle was
disposed of as per the Karnataka Excise rules.
4. Investigation: CW6/PW3 Smt. Netravathi,
received the case papers from CW1, she addressed a
letter as per Ex.P7 to RTO to provide the B Register
extract in respect of vehicle bearing No. KA 04 EN
3212 and send the MO1 and MO2 for examination
through CW7 Sri Yamanappa Lottagere and handed
over the case papers to Excise Police, Rajajinagara
Range. Thereafter, CW9/PW4 Sri Ningarajegowda,
recorded the statement of witnesses and addressed
letter to Bengaluru Urban District as per Ex.P9 to
confiscate the liquor and two-wheeler seized in this
case to Government for which he received permission
and after investigation, he submitted charge sheet
against the accused for the alleged offences.
5. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had
taken cognizance of offences alleged against the
accused.
4
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
6. At the pre-summoning stage, the accused was
enlarged on bail by the order dated 20-02-2020.
7. Copies of prosecution paper as required
U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Senior APP and
counsel for accused, charge for the offences
punishable under Section 11, 14, 32(1), 38(A) of
Karnataka Excise Act has been framed, read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to
him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses,
examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents
and MO1 & MO2 and closed their side. On account of
examination of CW4, the examination of CW6 was
given up by the order dated 25-10-2024. At the
request of Senior APP, the examination of CW5 and
CW7 are dropped out by the order dated 14-07-2023.
On account of marking of FSL report as Ex.P10 by
acting u/Sec.293 of Cr.P.C., the examination of CW8
is given up by the order dated 10-07-2025 and
evidence of PW3 is discarded on account of his
absence from 18-11-2023.
5
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
accused was examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C,
wherein he denied all incriminating evidence
appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses
and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 18-02-2020 at
about 6.40 p.m., near
Shivananda Circle, Opposite
Rajkamal Hotel, Race Course
Road, Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru, the accused was in
illegal possession of defence
liquor bottles totalling to 5.250
liters in excess of quantity and
transporting in his Honda
Active vehicle bearing
Registration bearing No.KA-04
EN-3212 thereby accused
6
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
committed the offences
punishable under Section 11,
13, 32(1) and 38(A) of
Karnataka Excise Act?
2. What order?
13. The court’s findings on the above points are
as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case
as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the witnesses which are as
follows;
i. CW1 Sri Mahesh B Latni, being informant
and the then Excise Inspector examined as PW1
deposed that 18-02-2020, on the receipt of
information received at Seshadripuram that the
accused was in illegally transporting defence liquors
in his two-wheeler, he, CW7 and CW9 and two other
persons were patrolling on the road leading from
7
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Shivanand Circle to Seshadripuram, when the
accused, who was riding a Honda Activa scooter with
registration number KA-04-EN-3212, saw them and
tried to run away. When he was caught and
interrogated, there was a blue and pink cloth bag on
the footrest of his scooter with the prints words on
Magic Premium Salted Rice. A reason for not securing
search warrant was prepared as per procedure at the
spot. On search, it contained 3 100 Pepper Whiskey
bottles each measuring 750 ml, 4 Black and white
Whisky bottles of each measuring 750 ml each. The
batch number and date were mentioned on the
sticker on the said bottles and said liquors was
belongs to Sale for Defence personnel only. Later,
when the accused was questioned about the same, he
said that he did not have a license to transport liquor.
He said that he prepared a list of bottles, took each
bottle separately for chemical examination and sealed
the same, attached a sample sheet with the signature
of Inspector, drawn a panchanama as per Ex.P3,
seized the same, brought the accused, the bike and
the objects to the police station and prepared a
complaint as per Ex.P1. He then filed a case and
submitted an FIR as per Ex.P2 to the court, and that
the two liquor bottles were sent for chemical
examination and the same were identified as MO1
and 2, the remaining liquor bottles were destroyed by
obtaining an order from the Excise Deputy
Commissioner as per Ex.P4, and the vehicle was
auctioned by obtaining an permission from the Excise
8
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Deputy Commissioner as per Ex.P5. He identified his
signature as Ex.P1(a) and 2(a).
ii. CW4 Sri namely Sri B.G. Thippeswamy,
Excise constable examined as PW2 who accompanied
PW1, deposed the same version of PW1 and identified
vehicle’s photo as per Ex.P6.
iii. CW6 by name Smt Netravathi, Excise
Inspector of Subhashnagara Range, examined as
PW3 deposed that after receipt of case papers from
CW1, she addressed a letter to the Regional Transport
Officers for furnishing the B-Extract of two-wheeler
bearing Registration No. KA-04-EN-3212 and seized
MO1 and 2 were sent to the laboratory for chemical
examination through CW7 as per letter of Ex.P8 and
the case papers was handed over to the Rajajinagar
Excise Zone on 20-06-2020. The evidence of this
witness has been discarded as she has not subject
himself for cross examination by the order dated
18/11/2023.
iv. CW9/PW4 Sri Ningarajegowda, the then
Excise Sub Inspector, Rajajinagara Range, deposed
that on 24-08-2020 he addressed a letter to the
Bangalore Urban District as per Ex.P9 to confiscate
the seized liquor, two-wheeler to the Government and
9
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
he received the permission. After completion of
investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.
15. It is relevant to mention the Section 11, 14,
32(1) and 38(A) of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which
reads as under
11. Transport of intoxicant.- No
intoxicant exceeding such
quantity as may be prescribed
either generally or for any local
area shall be transported, except
under a permit issued under
section 12.
14. Possession of excisable
articles in excess of the quantity
prescribed.- (1) The State
Government may, by notification,
prescribe a limit of quantity for
the possession of any intoxicant:
Provided that different limits may
be prescribed for different
qualities of the same article.
(2) No person shall have in his
possession any quantity of any
intoxicant in excess of the limit
prescribed under sub-section (1),10
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021except under the authority and in
accordance with the terms and
conditions of,-
(a) a licence for the manufacture,
cultivation, collection, sale or
supply of such article; or
(b) a permit granted by the
Deputy Commissioner in that
behalf.
32. Penalty for illegal import, etc.-
(1) Whoever, in contravention of
this Act, or any rule, notification
or order, made, issued or given
thereunder, or of any licence or
permit granted under this Act,
imports, exports, transports,
manufactures, collects or
possesses any intoxicant, shall,
on conviction, 1 [be punished for
each offence with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which
may extend to 2 [five years and
with fine which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees.]11
KABC030007682021 CC 211/20211 [Provided that the punishment,-
(i) for the first offence shall be not
less than [one year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of not less
than ten thousand rupees]; and
(ii) for the second and subsequent
offences shall be not less than
[two years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of not less than twenty
thousand rupees] 2 for each such
offence.](2) xxxx
38(A) Outlines the penalty for
allowing premises to be used for
the commission of offences under
the Act. Specifically, it states that
anyone who knowingly allows
their property or premises to be
used for committing offenses
punishable under sections 32, 33,
34, 36, and 37 will be punished
as if they had committed those
offenses12
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021It appears from the record that the reasons for
search warrant was prepared on 18/02/2020 at 6.40
pm at Shivananda circle, Opposite to Raj Kamal
Hotel, way to Sheshadripuram but the reasons
assigned for not obtaining searching warrant depicts
the 7×750 ml liquor (For sale to defence personnel
only) total 5.250 liter quantity of liquors alleged to
have seized from the possession of the accused in his
two-wheeler which goes to show that raiding
authority seized the liquors first and then assigned
the reasons, which is contrary to Section 53 and 54
of Karnataka Excise Act. In order to appreciate the
above said contention, it is just and necessary to
articulate those two provisions which reads as under
53. Power of magistrate to issue a
warrant. – If a Magistrate, upon information
and after such enquiry (if any) as he thinks
necessary, has reason to believe that an
offence under Section 32, Section 33,
Section 34, Section 36 or Section 37 has
been, is being, or is likely to be, committed,
he may issue a warrant, –
(a) for the search of any place in
which he has reason to believe
that any intoxicant, still, utensil,
implement, apparatus or
materials which are used for the
commission of such offence or in13
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021respect of which such offence has
been, is being, or is likely to be,
committed, are kept or concealed;
and
(b) for the arrest of any person
whom he has reason to believe to
have been, to be, or to be likely to
be, engaged in the commission of
any such offence.
54. Power to search without
warrant. – Whenever the Excise
Commissioner or a Deputy
Commissioner or any Police
Officer not below the rank of an
officer -in -charge of a Police
Station or any Excise Officer not
below such rank as may be
prescribed, has reason to believe
that an offence under Section 32,
Section 33, Section 34, Section 36
or Section 37 has been, is being,
or is likely to be, committed, and
that a search warrant cannot be
obtained without affording the
offender an opportunity of escape
or of concealing evidence of the
offence, he may, after recording
the grounds of his belief. –
14
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
(a) at any time by day or by night
enter and search any place and
seize anything found therein
which he has reason to believe to
be liable to confiscation under
this Act; and
(b) detain and search and, if he
thinks proper, arrest any person
found in such place whom he has
reason to believe to be guilty of
such offence as aforesaid.
As per Section 54 of the K.E. Act, the Judicial
Magistrate is a competent person to issue warrant, if
the Magistrate is satisfied about the information and
he has reason to believe that offences punishable
under Sections 32, 33, 34, 36 or 37 has been, is
being or likely to be, committed, then only may issue
search warrant for the search of any place in which
any intoxicant, still, utensil, implement are concealed
and also for arresting of any person who was involved
in commission of such offence. Section 54 of the K.E.
Act deals with, under what circumstances the police
officer or any competent officer can make a search
without a warrant. This provision abundantly clears
the doubt that whenever the competent officer has
reason to believe that an offence under the above said
provisions are likely to be committed or committed
and that a search warrant cannot be obtained
15
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
without affording the offender an opportunity of
escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he
may, after recording the grounds of his belief he can
search the said place.
16. The raiding authority has not followed the
mandatory provisions under Sections 53 and 54 of
the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the K.E. Act’ for brevity). The raiding authority
have no jurisdiction to search the vehicles and
accused without warrant from the Magistrate. The
raiding authority assigned the reasons after seizure
which is impermissible as contemplated under
Section 53 of K. E. Act. The prosecution paper does
not disclose that the police officer made all his efforts
to secure the necessary warrant. When the raiding
authority was unable to secure the warrant, and
therefore, by exercising the powers under Section 54
of K.E. Act by giving the reasons in black and white,
he could have proceeded with search of two wheeler
and hence the search and seizure becomes illegal and
invalid and the said principle is appreciated in the
case of NAGARAJ PATAGAR VERSUS STATE reported
in LAWS(KAR) 2014 2 514.
17. CW2 namely Sri G.N.Thimmegowda and
CW3 namely Sri V.Nagaraj are claimed to be
independent witnesses to the Ex.P3 (Seizure
16
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Mahazar) however they could not be secured in
support of Ex.P3 (seizure cum spot mahazar) thereby
the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 about the seizure
from custody of accused raises the doubt in the
mind of this court about the authenticity.
18. PW4 (IO) did not make any attempt to
investigate about the source of bottles whether these
bottles were supplied to the military personnel, who
was the military personnel and how that military
personnel could have given the liquor bottles to the
accused for sale or for usage or which the Military
Canteen has sold the liquor bottles are silent in the
prosecution case.
19. PW1 did not take photographs or video
graphed about the seizure procedure and more so the
signature of accused was not obtained on the Ex.P3
(seizure mahazar) to corroborate the version of
prosecution that liquor bottles were seized on 18-02-
2020.
20. The alleged offences are being cognizable
offence however the PW1 proceeded with investigation
without registration of FIR. In this context, it is
relevant to rely upon Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C
which reads as under
17
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
“154. Information in cognizable cases.
–(1) Every information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction,
and be read over to the informant;
and every such information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing
as aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form
as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that
if the information is given by the
woman against whom an offence
under section 326A, section 326B,
section 354, section 354A, section
354B, section 354C, section 354D,
section 376, [section 376A,section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C,
section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
is alleged to have been committed or
attempted, then such information
shall be recorded, by a woman police
officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that– (a) in the event
18
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021that the person against whom an
offence under section 354, section
354A, section 354B,section 354C,
section 354D, section 376, 1[section
376A, section 376AB, section 376B,
section 376C, section 376D, section
376DA, section 376DB], section 376E
or section 509 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have
been committed or attempted, is
temporarily or permanently mentally
or physically disabled, then such
information shall be recorded by a
police officer, at the residence of the
person seeking to report such offence
or at a convenient place of such
person’s choice, in the presence of an
interpreter or a special educator, as
the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information
shall be video graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the
statement of the person recorded by a
Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of
sub-section (5A) of section 164 as
soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub-section (1) shall19
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021be given forthwith, free of cost, to the
informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of an officer in charge of a
police station to record the
information referred to in sub-section
(1) may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to
the Superintendent of Police
concerned who, if satisfied that such
information discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct
an investigation to be made by any
police officer subordinate to him, in
the manner provided by this Code,
and such officer shall have all the
powers of an officer in charge of the
police station in relation to that
offence.
157. Procedure for investigation.–(1)
If, from information received or
otherwise, an officer in charge of a
police station has reason to suspect
the commission of an offence which
he is empowered under section 156 to
investigate, he shall forthwith send a
report of the same to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such
20
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
offence upon a police report and shall
proceed in person, or shall depute one
of his subordinate officers not being
below such rank as the State
Government may, by general or
special order, prescribe in this behalf,
to proceed, to the spot, to investigate
the facts and circumstances of the
case, and, if necessary, to take
measures for the discovery and arrest
of the offender:
Provided that– (a) when information
as to the commission of any such
offence is given against any person by
name and the case is not of a serious
nature, the officer in charge of a police
station need not proceed in person or
depute a subordinate officer to make
an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in
charge of a police station that there is
no sufficient ground for entering on
an investigation, he shall not
investigate the case. [Provided further
that in relation to an offence of rape,
the recording of statement of the
victim shall be conducted at the
residence of the victim or in the place
of her choice and as far as practicable21
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021by a woman police officer in the
presence of her parents or guardian or
near relatives or social worker of the
locality.](2) In each of the cases mentioned in
clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to
sub-section (1), the officer in charge of
the police station shall state in his
report his reasons for not fully
complying with the requirements of
that subsection, and, in the case
mentioned in clause (b) of the said
proviso, the officer shall also forthwith
notify to the informant, if any, in such
manner as may be prescribed by the
State Government, the fact that he
will not investigate the case or cause
it to be investigated.”
Thus, it is clear from above provisions that there
are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be
registered by the informant which was duly signed by
him. Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police
officer himself on any information received by him. In
both the cases, the information should be reduced
into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be
carried out. The search carried out by the raiding
authority is contrary to the law and the same is bad
in law and the said principle is appreciated in the
22
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
case of SRI DAYANANDA @ R. BABU VS STATE OF
KARNATAKA REPORTED IN LAWS(KAR) 2024 – 4- 16.
Therefore, it is safe to hold that, the prosecution
failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all
reasonable doubt thereby this court answers the
above point No.1 in the negative.
21. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion
and the findings to the above point No.1, this court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offences
punishable under Section 11,
14, 32(1) and 38(A) of Karnataka
Excise Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
23
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
(iv) MO1 & MO2 are ordered to
be destroyed after expiry of
appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and
corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 24th day of July, 2025)Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Mahesh.B Latni/Informant
PW2: Sri B.G.Thippeswamy/Excise Constable
PW3: Sri Smt.Netravati/Excise Inspector
PW4: Sri Ningerajegowda/IODocuments marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint/PW1 Ex.P2: FIR/PW1 Ex.P3: Seizure Mahazar 24 KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Ex.P4 Letter dated 19-03-2020 addressed
& P7: to RTO
Ex.P5: ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕೃತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಅಬಕಾರಿ ಉಪ
ಆಯುಕ್ತರು, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ, ಇವರ ಕಛೇರಿ
ನಡವಳಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ 10-11-2020
Ex.P6: Photo
Ex.P8: Letter dated 23-03-2020 addressed
to Laboratory
Ex.P9: Letter dated 24-08-2020 addressed
to ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕೃತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಅಬಕಾರಿ ಉಪ
ಆಯುಕ್ತರು, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರ
Ex.P10: Report of Chemical AnalysisMaterial Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 & 2 : Sample bottles
Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
25
KABC030007682021 CC 211/2021
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offences
punishable under Section 11, 14,
32(1) and 38(A) of Karnataka
Excise Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 & MO2 are ordered to
be destroyed after expiry of
appeal period.
(v) Ordered accordingly
VIII ACJM, B’luru City
26