Karnataka High Court
Sri.Prasannakumar S/O Chandrashekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102201/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI PRASANNAKUMAR S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
OCC: DRIVER, AGE: 41 YEARS,
PATELANAGAR,
NEAR VENKATESHWAR TEMPLE,
BALLARI-583101, BALLARI DISTRICT.
2. SRI JAVEED @ SHAIK MARKHUM,
S/O SHAIK NOOR MOHAMED,
PROPRIETOR OF HARMAIN ENTERPRISES,
AGE: 47 YEARS, I CROSS, R.T. NAGAR,
TUMAKURU-572101.
3. SRI ILIYAZ S/O BUDENSAB
OCC: STOCK MANAGER OF
SECOND PETITIONER'S COMPANY,
AGE: 48 YEARS, COWL BAZAR,
BALLARI-583101, DIST: BALLARI.
4. SRI IMARAN S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
BUSINESSMAN, AGE: 37 YEARS,
COWLL BAZAR, BALLARI-583101.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI CITY SUB DIVISION, BALLARI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. SRI JANARDHANA C.S.
OCC: DYSP, BALLARI CITY POLICE STATION,
SUB DIVISION, BALLARI-583101.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR IN CRIME
NO.96/2019 REGISTERED BY COWL BAZAR POLICE, BALLARI
SUB-DIVISION COMING UNDER JURISDICTION OF II-ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, BALLARI, BALLARI DIST.,
FILED U/S 3 & 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955
& SEC.18(2) OF PDS CONTROLLING ORDER 1992, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND AMOUNTING TO
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for respondents would in unison submit that the issue in the subject criminal petition stands covered by the Judgments rendered by the coordinate benches of this Court in the following cases.
(i) Criminal Petition No.4233/2016 in the case of Sri Shaik Markhum Ahmed S/o.Shaik Noor and Another vs. The State of Karnataka, disposed of on 18.08.2016.
(ii) Criminal Petition No.101518/2017 in the case of Sri Jayaram K. S/o.Narayana and others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, disposed of on 06.02.2019.
(iii) Criminal Petition No.3790/2012 C/w. Criminal Petition No.3708/2012 in the case of Sri K.Nagaraj S/o.Putra Basappa vs. The State of Karantaka, disposed of on 06.07.2015.
which has been followed by several other benches. This Court in Criminal Petition No.4233/2016 has held as follows:
4"3. As on 16.5.2016 a case has been registered in Crime No.230/2016 by the Sub- Inspector, Challakere Police Station, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere and therefore the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The learned counsel Sri S.P.Kulkarni would contend that insofar as enforcement of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, there are specific provisions under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, which are applicable to the present case on hand. Paragraph 19 thereof provides as follows:
19. Powers of Entry, Search, Seizure, etc.: (1) The Director of Food and Civil Supplies, the Joint Directors of Food and Civil Supplies, or the Tahsildar of a taluk, and Authorized Authority or any other officer of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies not below the rank of a Food Inspector within their jurisdiction may with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit and if he has reason to believe that there is or has been any contravention of the provisions of this order or with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfying himself that there is or has been any contravention of the order:
(a) require the owner, occupier or any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to be committed, to produce 5 any books, accounts or other documents showing transactions relating to such contraventions:
(b) enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order orof the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to be committed; .
(c) take or cause to be taken extracts from or copies of any documents showing transactions relating to such contraventions which are produced before him;
(d) search, seize and remove books, accounts and other documents and stocks of essential commodity and the animals vehicles, vessels or other conveyance used in carrying the said essential commodities in contravention of the provisions of this order, or of the conditions of the authorization issued there under and thereafter take or authorize the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks, of essential commodity and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyance so seized, in a Court for their safe custody pending such production.
(2) The provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall so far may be, apply to searches and seizures clause."
5. The learned counsel would therefore contend that from the tenor of the above stated Section, the mechanism for regulating and enforcing the Essential Commodities Act and the prevention of any such illegal transaction or sale of foodgrains is under the power and control of officers authorized by 6 the State Government and the said powers cannot be enforced or exercised by police, as in the present case on hand the entire action of the police authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction and the seizure of the foodgrains which are now kept in the open space are susceptible and certainly would cause loss to the petitioners and therefore would submit on the sole ground that the seizure search and seizure of foodgrains has been made illegal and without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings ought to be quashed and the goods be released in favour of the petitioners.
6. The learned State Public Prosecutor would concede that the said regularization namely The Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 does prescribe the Authority or the Officers who could carry out search and seizure of foodgrains to which the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and other alike provisions would apply and that the seizure by the police was without authority cannot be the glaring circumstance."
and in the Criminal Petition No.101580/2017 this Court has held as follows :
7"Having heard the argument of both the sides, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the raid was conducted and the rice was seized at the instance of the persons who are engaged in loading the good grains to the lorry on 06.06.2017 and all these petitioners claims that they are the owner of the godown, driver of the vehicle and also the owner of the rice and the petitioners in support of their contention that they have purchased the rice from the APMC they have relied upon the receipt issued by the APMC which is annexed along with this petition and the same is dated 5.6.2017 apart from that the report which has been received recently confirms that the food grains which has been seized is not the PDS rice samples and when such being the case, I am of the opinion that continuing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process and it amounts to miscarriage of justice and hence it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners."
2. In the light of the orders passed by this Court supra, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.8
(ii) The Proceedings in Crime No.96/2019 of Cowlbazar Police Station, Ballari pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Ballari stands quashed against the petitioners.
SD JUDGE CKK