V Chitti Babu v. State of Karnataka - Quashing of FIR

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 10, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

V Chitti Babu vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

1

Reserved on : 11.03.2026
R
Pronounced on : 25.03.2026

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

      WRIT PETITION No.8163 OF 2026 (GM -RES)

BETWEEN:

V.CHITTI BABU
S/O V.VARADARAJULU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.154, 3RD CROSS,
GIRINAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 085
PARTNER OF LEGACY BREWING COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008.

                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE,
   MM ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
   BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE,
   BENGALURU - 560 026.
   2

2. NAVEEN M.S.,
   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
   POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
   RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION,
   RR NAGAR, BENGALURU - 98.
   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP)

 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER [ARTICLES 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) AND [227](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331149/) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF

BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 05/0SHO26 REGISTERED
IN CRIME NO.69/2026, DATED 05/03/2026 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1-RAJARAJESHWARI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT,
1986 AND SECTION 36(1)(g) OF THE KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT,
1965, ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, QUA THE PETITIONER, VIDE
ANNEXURE A; B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.03.2026 ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE AFORE STATED FIR IS REGISTERED, QUA THE
PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE B; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2026, IN CASE
NO. NC 79/2026 PASSED BY THE XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN GRANTING PERMISSION
UNDER SECTION 174(2) OF THE BNSS ACT, TO THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE BY REGISTERING FIR, QUA
THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE C.

 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                        CAV ORDER

  The petitioner is before the Court calling in question a crime

in Crime No.69 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (' Excise Act ' for

short) and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

  2. Heard Sri Sharath S.Gowda, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

  3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:-

  3.1. The petitioner, a partner in Legacy Brewing Company, a

Company registered under the [Limited Liability Partnership Act,

2008](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161391573/) is drawn as accused No.1 in the present proceedings. The

facts that led to the petitioner being drawn as accused No.1 are

that on a particular day i.e., 31-01-2026 a boy named Reyan Jacob,

a juvenile, is said to have died in his apartment. A case is
4

registered as an unnatural death in UDR No.4 of 2026. During the

course of investigation of suicidal death of the boy, as afore-noted,

it comes to light that, commission of suicide by falling from the 7th

floor of the apartment was on consumption of liquor in Legacy

Brewing Company, Rajarajeshwarinagar. Therefore, a suo-motu

complaint comes to be registered on 01-02-2026 alleging offences

punishable under Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act and Section 77 of the Act. On the said complaint a crime in Crime No.32 of 2026

comes to be registered.

  3.2. Both these offences being non-cognizable, the crime

could not have been registered without at the outset taking

permission from the hands of the learned Magistrate as obtaining

under Section 174(2) of the BNSS or Section 155(2) of the earlier

regime of the IPC. The act of registration of crime in Crime No.32 of

2026 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.3613 of

1. This Court disposed of the petition on 05-02-2026 quashing

the proceedings on the ground that permission of the learned

Magistrate was imperative prior to registration of the crime. In the

said order, liberty was reserved to the State to act in accordance
5

with law. The State then, in exercise of the liberty so granted,

registered a complaint again on 04-03-2026 as NCR 79 of 2026 and

while drawing up a non-cognizable report, seeks permission of the

learned Magistrate for registration of crime. The learned Magistrate

permits registration of crime in terms of his order dated

05-03-2026. Pursuant to the permission so granted, the crime is

now registered for the very offences that had been registered

earlier against the petitioner. The petitioner is back at the doors of

this Court, calling in question registration of the subject crime in

Crime No.69 of 2026, for it having been registered on 05-03-2026.

  4. The learned counsel Sri Sharath S.Gowda appearing for the

petitioner would vehemently contend that the order of the learned

Magistrate in granting permission suffers from non-application of

mind and is in complete violation of plethora of judgments rendered

by coordinate Benches including the judgment of the coordinate

Bench in VAGGEPPA GURULINGA JANGALIGI v. STATE OF

KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 Kar.630. He would further take this

Court through the bill appended to the petition to contend that what

was offered to the boy who was accompanied by students and died
6

later did not contain serving of liquor. It is his case that liquor was

carried by 15 years old student along with other students of the

same age in his bag. They go under the table empty the liquor into

glasses, consume it and goes outside the Legacy Brewing Company

and, therefore, the petitioner or the staff members are not aware of

what they had consumed. It is a Brewing Company where families

come and children also would come, but liquor is not served to

persons below 18 years of age. The incident now reported has not

happened on account of serving of liquor by the petitioner, but on

own volition. It may be that outside he might have consumed more

liquor. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that what the Act punishes is for serving of liquor and not

consumption of liquor.

  5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State submits that upto 6.30 in the evening the

boy along with others stayed in the brewery, goes to the apartment

i.e., his house and at 9.40 p.m. falls from the 7th floor of the

building and dies. The post-mortem report of the boy is indicative of

the fact that there was presence of alcohol in his body and the
7

reason was consumption of alcohol in the Legacy Brewing

Company. The boy being in Legacy Brewing Company is an

admitted fact upto 6.30 p.m. Whether he has gone to the house

directly or not is a matter of investigation. The story twined by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that boys took the liquor out of

the bag, mixed with it something and consumed are all a matter of

investigation. The only ground on which the earlier petition was

allowed was, there was no permission taken from the hands of the

learned Magistrate for registration of the crime. Therefore, the

process had been redone right from the stage of furnishing the

complaint to the learned Magistrate. The order of the learned

Magistrate is in detail and cannot be construed to be suffering from

non-application of mind. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

  6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

  7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A boy by name

Reyan Jacob along with his friends visited the Brewing Company.
8

The Company which runs a brewery in the name and style of

'Legacy Brewing Company'. It is in public domain that it can

entertain 4000 and odd guests at any given point in time.

Therefore, it is a huge brewery. The boys enter, secure seats and

alleged to have consumed alcohol. The subject of the present lis is

15 years old boy, who could not have been allowed inside a

brewery or permitted consumption of liquor or even served any

liquor. The boy after consumption of liquor goes back to his house

and falls from 7th floor of the apartment of the same area. It was

treated as suicide and UDR No.4 of 2026 was registered. From the

investigation prior to registration of UDR, it was noticed, that the

boy along with other boys of the same age consumed alcohol in the

petitioner's Legacy Brewing Company. The CCTV footage disclosed

that the boy did consume alcohol in the brewery. The reason for his

death may be manifold, including consumption of alcohol. The issue

is, how a boy of 15 years old being given entry into a Legacy

Brewing Company and he having consumed alcohol has gone

unchecked.
9

 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what

was served to these boys were: (i) Ghee Roast Chicken; (ii) Loaded

Nachos; (iii) Onion Ring; (iv) Vedica Water Bottle 1 liter and

(v) Classic Ice Burst and not any liquor. The liquor was brought by

them in the bag surreptitiously and have drunk. The petitioner has

also placed a photograph of the CCTV footage of the boys sitting

together at 18.51 hours. Therefore, the boys were in the brewery at

18.51 hours on 31-01-2026. The time at which the boys left the

brewery is not known. The picture only shows that it is 18.51 hours

when they were in the brewery.

 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously

contended that the order of the learned Magistrate is bereft of

reasons in granting permission. The first registration of crime was

admittedly without any permission being taken from the hands of

the learned Magistrate, notwithstanding the fact that the offences

alleged were non-cognizable. This Court had quashed registration

of crime on the score that no permission was taken, but liberty was

reserved to the State to act in accordance with law. The order of
10

the Court quashing the earlier proceedings and reserving liberty

reads as follows:

                                          "....   ....     ....

        10. In the light of the law being clear, the petition
  deserves to succeed, however, reserving liberty to the State to
  take action, in accordance with law.

           11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

                               ORDER [I]      Writ Petition is allowed.

           [II]     Proceedings in Crime No.32 of 2026 pending on the file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan
                    Magistrate, Bangalore City, qua the petitioner
                    stands quashed.

[III] Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
accordance with law."

The crime stood quashed. Liberty, as observed, was granted. The

State then generates a requisition on 4-03-2026 quoting the order

of this Court that the earlier requisition would be of no avail, as the

crime has been quashed. The requisition reads as follows:

" ೇದ ೆ:
ಾಜ ಾ ೇಶ ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಕತ ವ ವ ಸು!"ರುವ #ಎ ಐ ನ&ೕ'
ಎಂ.ಎ ಆದ ಾನು ೕಡು!"ರುವ ವರ+ ಎ ೆಂದ ೆ,

               ಾನು ಾಜ ಾ ೇಶ ನಗರ       ೕ     ಾ ೆಯ   #ಎ ಐ ಆ, ಕತ ವ      ವ   ಸು!"ದು-, ಈ

+ವಸ ೇಕ/ ಾ' ರವರು ಾ ೆ0ೆ 1ಾಜ ಾ, ತನ2 ಮಗ ಾದ ೆ4ಾ' ೆಕ/ 15 ವಷ ರವರು
+ ಾಂಕ:31.01.2026 ರಂದು ಾ!6 ಸು7ಾರು 21:40 ಗಂ8ೆಯ ತಮ9 1ಾ &:ಾಸದ ಮಂ!6 11 ಆ¯ÉàöÊ£ï ಅ<ಾ= >ಂ=ನ 7 ೇ ಮಹ@Aಂದ Bದು-, ಮೃತಪEFರುವGHಾ, ದೂರು ೕ@ದು-, ಸದ
ದೂರನು2 J ೕಕ ಾ ಾ ಯು.@.ಆK ನಂ.04/2026 ಕಲಂ 194 Bಎ'ಎ ಎ ೕMಾ ದೂರು
Hಾಖಲು 7ಾ@ ತ Oೆ Pೈ0ೊಂ@ರುMೆ"ೕ ೆ.

ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oಾ Pಾಲದ ಮೃತ ೆ4ಾ' ೆಕ/ನ Sೆ2ೕ ತ ಾದ + &Tನನು2 &Uಾರ
7ಾಡVಾ,, + ಾಂಕ:31.01.2026 ರಂದು ಸಂ ೆ ಸು7ಾರು 18:30 ಗಂ8ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ಾನು
ಮತು" ನನ2 Sೆ2ೕ ತ ಾದ ೆ4ಾ' ೆಕ/, ಅಥವ , Pಾ! X ೆ@Y ಇತರರು ಒEF0ೆ Sೇ VೆಗJ\
©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ 1ೋ,Hಾ-, ಅ ಮಧ <ಾನ ಮತು" ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾ@ದು-, ನಂತರ ೆ4ಾ'
ೆಕ/ನನು2 ಆತನ 1ಾ &:ಾಸದ ಮ ೆ0ೆ ಆ8ೋದ ಕ ೆದುPೊಂಡು 1ೋ, BಟುF ಬಂ+ರುವGHಾ,
!aJರುMಾ" ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು + &T 7ಾ ! >ೕ ೆ0ೆ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ+-ನ ಲಗJ\ B6&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ
1ೋ, ಅ ದ- JJE& ದೃbಾ ವaಗಳನು2 ಪ dೕ ಸVಾ, ಮೃತ ೆ4ಾ' ಜಕ/ 1ಾಗೂ ಆತನ
Sೆ2ೕ ತರು ಸದ VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ 0ೆ 1ೋ, ಅ ಮಧ <ಾನ ಮತು" ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾ@ರುವGದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ+ರುತ"Hೆ.

ಸದ ಹುಡುಗರು ಅ<ಾ6ಪ" eಾಲಕ ಾ,ದು-, ಅವರುಗಳ ವಯJ\ನ ಬ0ೆf ಖgತಪ@JPೊಳhHೆ
ಅವ 0ೆ ಮಧ <ಾನ/ಧೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾಡಲು ಅವPಾಶ 7ಾ@PೊಟುF ಯಮ ಉಲಂಘ ೆ 7ಾ@ರುವ
VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ 7ಾ ೕಕರು ಮತು" Jಬkಂ+ಗಳ &ರುದl ಸೂಕ" Pಾನೂನು PÀæªÀÄ Pೈ0ೊಳhಲು
+ ಾಂಕ:01.02.2026 ರಂದು ೕ@ದ ವರ+ >ೕ ೆ0ೆ ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ
ACT & 36(1)(J) KEACT ೕMಾ ಪ6ಕರಣ Hಾಖ J ತ Oೆ Pೈ0ೊಳhVಾ,ತು" ಆದ ೇ + ಾಂಕ:

03.02.2026 ರಂದು ಪ6ಕರಣದ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ#4ಾದ VೆಗJ\ ©æÃ&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ 7ಾ ೕಕರದ gEF
eಾಬು ರವರು ತಮ9 &ರುದl HಾಖVಾ,ದ- ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆ0ೆ ತnೆ4ಾoೆಯನು2 ೕಡುವಂMೆ Pೋ
7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ = #Eಷ' ನಂ. 3613/2026 ರ ಅr ಯನು2
ಸ JPೊಂ@ರುMಾ" ೆ.
ನಂತರ + ಾಂಕ: 05-02-2026 ರಂದು 7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ = #Eಷ' ನಂ.
3613/2026 ರ &Uಾರ ೆ ನnೆದು ಈ PೆಳಕಂಡಂMೆ ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುತ"Hೆ.

ORDER

   [I]       Writ Petition is allowed.

   [II]      Proceeding in Crime No 32/2026 pending on the file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
             Bangalore City, qua the petitioner stands quashed.

   [III]     Liberty is reserved to the State to take action in
             accordance with law.

12 >ೕಲsಂಡ ತ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ#0ೆ ಸಂಬಂ+JದಂMೆ ಉVೇಖ-2 ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆಯನು2
ನnೆಸದಂMೆ ಪ6ಕರಣವನು2 ವ ಾ0ೊaJ ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುತ"Hೆ.

ಆದ- ಂದ 7ಾನ ಉಚu ಾ 4ಾಲಯವG ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT
& 36(1)(J) KEACT PೇJನ ಎ1. ಆ ೋ#0ೆ ಸಂಬಂvJದಂMೆ ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026
ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT & 36(1)(J) KEACT ಪ6ಕರಣದ ತ Oೆಯನು2 ನnೆಸದಂMೆ ಪ6ಕರಣವನು2 ವ ಾ
0ೊaJರುತ"Hೆ. ಸದ ಆHೇಶದ Liberty is reserved to the State to take action
in accordance with law JA§ÄzÁV ಆHೇಶ 7ಾ@ರುವGದ ಂದ ಅ<ಾ6ಪ" ವಯJ\ನ eಾಲಕರು
/ ಮಕsa0ೆ ವಯJ\ನ ದೃwೕಕರಣದ ಬ0ೆf ಪ ಶdೕ ಸHೆ VೆಗJ\ eೆ6&ಂ] ಕಂಪ ಯ ಮಧ <ಾನ
1ಾಗೂ ದೂಮ<ಾನ 7ಾಡಲು ಅವPಾಶ 7ಾ@PೊEFರುವ ಆ ೋ#ಗಳ &ರುದl ಸೂಕ" Pಾನೂನು ೕMಾ
ಕ6ಮ Pೈ0ೊಳxhವಂMೆ ತಮ9 Pೋ PೊಳxhMೆ"ೕ ೆ. ಇದ ೊಂ+0ೆ 7ಾನ ಉಚq ಾ 4ಾಲಯದ =
#Eಷ' ನಂ.3613/2026ರ ಆHೇಶದ ಪ6!ಯನು2, ಯು.@.ಆK ನಂ.04/2026ರ ಪ6! ಮತು" ಈ ಂHೆ
Hಾಖಲು 7ಾ@ದ- ಾ ಾ m.ಸಂOೆ .32/2026 ಕಲಂ 77 JJ ACT & 36(1)(J) KE ACT
ಎy.ಐ.ಆK ಪ6!ಯನು2 ಲಗ!"JರುMೆ"ೕ ೆ.

ಸ /-

(ನ&ೕ' ಎಂ.ಎ ) #ಎ

          + ಾಂಕ:-04-03-2026 ರಂದು ಾ ಾ PSI ನ&ೕ' M.S ರವರು      ೕ@ದ ವರ+ಯ >ೕ ೆ0ೆ
     ಾ ಾ NCR No 79/2026 ರ ನಮೂದು7ಾ@ರುMೆ"ೕ ೆ
                                                                        ಸ /-"

The requisition was to grant permission to register a crime. This is

answered by the learned Magistrate on 05-03-2026 by the following

order:
"NC No.79/2026
Dated: 05-03-2026

ORDER

The R.R. Nagar Police submitted requisition. Received
requisition along with acknowledgment in NC No.79 of 2026 and
First Information Statement through WPC No.19468 of R.R. 13 Nagar Police Station on 05-03-2026 at 12.00 p.m. in Open
Court.

The SHO of R.R. Nagar Police has referred the First
Informant to me with requisition. The First informant by name
Naveen M.S., PSI, R.R. Nagara Police Station is present.

I have gone through the contents of the requisition,
acknowledgment in NC No.79 of 2026 and First Information
statement. Along with said documents the first informant
produced the copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
in W.P.No.3613 of 2026, wherein the earlier FIR in Crime No.32
of 2026 is quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is
submitted that liberty was given to the State to take action in
accordance with law. It is submitted that since the alleged
offences were non-cognizable and FIR has been registered
without the permission of the Magistrate, the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka quashed the FIR. As per the said order the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka reserved the liberty to State to take
action in accordance with law. Now, the IO referred the first
informant along with First Information statement and
acknowledgment in NCR No.79 of 2026.

The averments of First Information statement prima facie
constitute the necessary ingredients of Section 36(1) of
Karnataka Excise Act and u/s 77 of JJ Act. According to the First
Information statement the accused persons being the license
holder against the conditions of the license sells liquor to a child
who is under 18 years of age. Hence, I feel that, it is a fit case
to be investigated. There is a ground to permit the Police Officer
to take up the investigation for the alleged office. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Acting under section 174(2) of BNSS the SHO of R.R.
Nagar Police is permitted to investigate the case in accordance
with law.

Issue intimation to SHO of RR Nagar Police Station."
14 A perusal at the earlier requisition and the present requisition bears

no difference. It is verbatim similar, except quoting the order

passed by this Court. The contention that the order of the learned

Magistrate does not bear application of mind is also untenable, as

the order of the learned Magistrate does bear application of mind,

which is enough for granting permission to register a crime and

take up investigation. It is not necessary that the Magistrate should

undertake a roving enquiry at the time of grant of permission to

register a crime. Therefore, the said submission that it bears no

application of mind stands repelled.

1. The next limb of submission that falls for consideration is,

whether the facts of the case would warrant investigation or

otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act and Section 77 of the Act. Section 36(1)(g) reads as follows:

"36. Penalty for misconduct of licensee, etc.- (1)
Whoever, being the holder of a licence or permit granted under
this Act, or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his
behalf,-

... ... ...
15
(g) sells or gives any intoxicant to any child apparently
under eighteen years of age or permits or suffers such child or
remain in or on the premises where any excisable article is sold,
or manufactured; or"
Section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act, in unmistakable terms, provides

that a license holder, who sells or gives any intoxicant to a child

apparently under 18 years of age or permits or suffers such child to

remain in the premises where liquor and or intoxicants are sold or

manufactured, renders himself liable for penal consequences. The

sweep of the provision is not confined merely to the act of

sale, it extends equally to tolerance and permission, passive

or active. The statutory command, is thus, both preventive

and prohibitory in character. The legislative intent is clear. A

licensee having been entrusted with the privilege of dealing

in intoxicants bears a corresponding and higher duty of

vigilance. The law casts upon him, not merely an obligation

to refrain from serving minors, but also duty to ensure that

minors do not remain in the premises where intoxicants are

sold or manufactured. Section 77 of the Act reads as follows:

"77. Penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child.--
Whoever gives, or causes to be given, to any child any
intoxicating liquor or any narcotic drug or 35 tobacco products 16 or psychotropic substance, except on the order of a duly
qualified medical practitioner, shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to a fine which may extend up to one lakh
rupees."
Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act is even more stringent.

It declares that whoever gives or causes to be given to any

child intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug, tobacco product or a

psychotropic substance, except under medical prescription,

the rigour of the provision is unmistakable. The protection

of children from exposure to intoxicants.

1. When the order of the learned Magistrate is examined on

the touchstone of whether there existed prima facie material to

permit investigation, the answer is self evident. It is undisputed

that the boy, aged 15 years, was present within the premises of the

Brewery. The presence of alcohol in his body as disclosed by the

post-mortem examination, is a matter borne out by record.

Whether the intoxicated was served, facilitated, tolerated or

consumed in some clandestine manner is not a question that can be 17 adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is a

matter that squarely falls within the domain of investigation.

1. The very fact that boys of underage were permitted entry

into a Brewery, premises dedicated to the sale and manufacture of

excisable articles raises serious concerns. If it is contended that

the liquor was consumed without the knowledge of the staff or

management, that contention itself necessitates enquiry. It is an

admitted norm that liquor from outside is not permitted within such

Establishments, like that of the petitioner. If minors could carry

intoxicants inside, evade detection and consume them unchecked

demands scrutiny. The scrutiny - investigation. Investigation

therefore becomes imperative to ascertain how underage

individuals gained entry without age verification; whether

any mechanism existed to scrutinize identification of

documents; whether supervisory safeguards were in place

and whether statutory obligations cast upon the licensee

were discharged with the vigilance the law demands. 18

1. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the broader

implications. Breweries and similar Establishments, which

have proliferated in urban spaces must initiate rigorous age

verification protocols, be it through Aadhar or other valid

identification, at threshold of entry and further verification

should follow, when liquor is ordered by persons who appear

youthful or underage. The Breweries or the places where alcohol

is being sold cannot be complacent. Age verification cannot be

a perfunctory ritual, it must be a living practice by display of

conspicuous warnings by insistence upon documentary

proof. When minors gain entry and order for intoxicants,

whether overtly served or covertly consumed, the

Management of such Establishments cannot show their

hands off, in indifference. The protection of youth is not

merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative. The

Managements of the places would be held accountable for

any lapses.

1. Insofar as the present case is concerned, whether the

unfortunate death is casually linked to consumption of alcohol is, at 19 this juncture, a matter of investigation. The presence of alcohol in

the body of the deceased cannot be brushed aside. The material on

record discloses sufficient ground to permit investigation. This is

not a case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of

the BNSS ought to be exercised to stifle proceedings at their very

inception. To interdict investigation at this stage would be

premature and unwarranted.

1. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition,

the petition stands dismissed.

Interim order of any kind if operating shall stand dissolved.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE

bkp
CT:MJ