Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15226 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MUSTHAFA
S/O HAMZA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL HALE ALIVE, BEACH ROAD KOTESHWARA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576 222. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE
BY SHO Digitally signed by KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION R HEMALATHA Location: High REPRESENTED BY Court of STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Karnataka AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN, DATED 12.04.2022, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, IN CC NO.988/2022, (CRIME NO.108/2020 OF KUNDAPURA PS) FOR -2-
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,6 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The Petitioner challenges the order of cognizance dated 12.04.2022 taken by the Learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kundapura, in C.C. No. 988/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6, and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The prosecution alleges that, as per the complaint made by the Food Inspector on 27.08.2020, and based on
information received from police officials regarding hoarding of fair price rice in a house at Mepu, Koteshwara village, the Probationary Officer, Deputy Tahsildar, and constables of Kundapura Police Station conducted a search and found rice stored in polythene bags in a house. They found six persons who were collecting the rice, and the police seized 30,800 kilograms of rice. A case was
registered against six accused, including the Petitioner/Accused No. 2.
3. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet dated 25.06.2021 against the accused, including the petitioner. The allegation against the -3- petitioner is that he stored 30,800 kilograms of rice, meant for the Public Distribution System (PDS), with the intent to sell it at a higher market price.
4. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that it was improper for the police to register a case based on the complaint of the Food Inspector. Under the Essential Commodities Act, a private complaint must be filed before the Magistrate for cognizance to be taken. The Food Inspector may be authorized to seize the commodity for violation of the E.C. Act, but not the police.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
6. A perusal of the charge sheet indicates that no
sample of the food grains was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that the seized grains were meant for the Public Distribution System. No evidence has been produced to substantiate that the seized rice was meant for distribution under the PDS or that it was obtained from fair price shops authorized to distribute such rice under the PDS.
7. Furthermore, Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, expressly bars the taking of -4-
cognizance of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act, except on a report by a designated public servant. The Court cannot take cognizance of such an offence unless a complaint in writing is filed by the specified public servant. However, in the present case, the police officers registered the complaint, and cognizance was taken based on the charge sheet submitted by them. This cannot be considered ‘a complaint in writing by the public servant’ as required under the Act.
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 36438-439/2014 and W.P.No. 36542/2014 (GM-EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under:-
"14. In the instant case, petitioners are not authorized dealers. They are not shown to be engaged in purchase, storage or sale of food grains which were issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system. Therefore, essential ingredient explicitly stated under Clause 18 (a) i.e., the goods / commodities must have been issued to the authorized dealer under the public distribution system is missing. No finding is recorded by the 1st respondent in this regard. In fact, there is no material whatsoever to indicate this aspect. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, unless there is material to show that the commodities were issued to an authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system or that a person other than the authorized dealer had sought to purchase or sell or store or offer for sale food grains meant for distribution under public distribution system through the price depots, prohibition contained under Clause 18 (a) of the Control Order would not be -5-
attracted. In the absence of such findings such action will not attract penal measure including seizure or forfeiture."
21. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that,
the allegation against the accused herein is that, they were transporting the food grains meant for distribution under PDS unauthroizedly. The charge sheet material does not disclose as to where the accused procured the food grains meant for distribution under PDS, and also no material is placed that, the seized food grains were meant for distribution under PDS. In the absence of any material that, the seized food grains were meant for distribution under PDS, the registration of FIR culminating in laying the charge sheet stands vitiated.
22. The Food Inspector is only authorized to conduct
search and seizure of the food grains meant for distribution under PDS as specified under Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016. If a person is transporting rice which is notified as an essential commodity without permit, it is for the police concerned to seize the same by following due process of law.”
9. In the instant case, there is no substantive
evidence to substantiate that the rice/ food grains sold by the petitioner-accused No.2 were meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme, and were procured from the fair price shop/s authorized to distribute rice under PDS.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
11. The impugned Proceedings in C.C No. 988/2022 pending on the file of the Learned Addl. Civil Judge and -6-
J.M.F.C, Kundapura in for the offenses punishable under Sections 3,6 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in so far it relates to the Petitioners, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 222