Karnataka High Court Quashes Conviction Under Excise Act Due to Faulty FIR

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court nullified a conviction under the Karnataka Excise Act after finding flaws in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). The case, Dayananda and Anr. v The State of Karnataka, saw the court overturning the conviction of two individuals under various sections of the Excise Act.

Justice S Rachaiah highlighted that the FIR was registered based on a panchanama, a document recording evidence and findings made by an investigating officer at the scene of a crime. However, the court ruled that a panchanama cannot be considered a complaint, thereby rendering the registration of the FIR improper.

The petitioners were convicted following a search and seizure operation in 2008, initiated after a police tip-off. Despite their conviction in the trial court, upheld by the appellate court, the petitioners sought relief from the High Court.

Advocate Pratheep KC, representing the petitioners, argued that the registration of the FIR after the search and seizure operation violated legal procedures. Additionally, he pointed out discrepancies in the admission of evidence and the prosecution's failure to comply with certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

On the other hand, the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) contended that the registration of the case was justified, as the accused failed to produce documents authorizing the transportation of liquor.

The court, referencing sections 154 and 157 of the CrPC, delineated between two types of FIRs: those filed by informants and those filed by police officers based on credible information. However, it emphasized that regardless of the type, the information or complaint must be reduced to writing before the investigation commences.

Given that the FIR was registered based on a panchanama, the court deemed the registration improper and invalidated the subsequent proceedings. Consequently, it set aside the convictions of the petitioners.

The ruling underscores the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in criminal cases and highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law. By scrutinizing the legality of the FIR registration, the court ensures the protection of individuals' rights and safeguards against procedural irregularities.

Author: Anushka Taraniya 

News Writer, MIT ADT University