Police cannot file FIR based Solely on Seizure Panchnama: Karnataka HC acquits accused u/s 32, 34, 38A of Excise Act [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court, through a ruling by Justice S Rachaiah, has acquitted two accused in a case related to alleged offenses under Sections 32, 34, and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act.

The judgment, issued following a revision petition, sets aside the previous conviction handed down by lower courts.

The case dates back to an incident on November 24, 2008, when the Sub-Inspector of Hunsur Excise Range, accompanied by staff, received information about the accused allegedly transporting liquor.

As per the averments of the complaint, 48 bottles of liquor have been seized by the Sub-Inspector and each bottle containing 180 ml of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey. The case came to be registered against the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent police have conducted an investigation and submitted a charge sheet.

The subsequent interception of the accused, their arrest, and the seizure of the liquor items form the basis of the prosecution's case. However, the defense raised substantial arguments regarding procedural irregularities.

The defense, represented by Advocate Pratheep K.C, highlighted discrepancies in the timing of events, particularly questioning the legality of the search and seizure conducted prior to the formal registration of the FIR. This procedural lapse, as argued, violated established legal principles and cast doubt on the validity of subsequent actions taken by law enforcement.

Furthermore, the defense contested the absence of a proper statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr.P.C ), emphasizing the necessity of due process in criminal proceedings. They argued that the conviction rendered by the Trial Court lacked a solid legal foundation due to these procedural lapses.

On the prosecution's side, HCGP Rahul Rai K presented arguments defending the actions of the Investigating Officer, citing reasons for the procedural deviations and justifying the registration of the case based on available evidence and the Investigating Officer's actions.

The High Court's decision rested on a meticulous examination of legal provisions, particularly Section 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C, pertaining to the registration of FIRs. The Court highlighted the distinction between an FIR registered by an informant and one registered by a police officer, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and adherence to procedural norms.

Thus, the Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice S Rachaiah concluded that the registration of the FIR in this case, based on a panchanama, was erroneous and lacked legal validity.

In result, the conviction based on such flawed procedures was deemed ineffective in the eyes of the law, leading to the acquittal of the defendants.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates