Karnataka High Court
Sri A S Govindaraj vs The State on 26 September, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
®
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9689 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI C. VEERABHADRA BABU
S/O SRI CHALLURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF SRI RANGAM OIL INDUSTRIES
KALYAN DURGA CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577522
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI
KITTUR JAMAL SAB IMAMSAB., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY ITS CHALLAKERE POLICE
Digitally signed by CHALLAKERE TALUK
POORNIMA
SHIVANNA CHALLAKERE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHITRADURGA DIST
KARNATAKA NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
2. FOOD INSPECTOR
TALUK OFFICE
CHALLAKERE TOWN
-2-
CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 03.12.2016 AND FIR
IN CR. NO.485/2016 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
BY CHALLAKERE P.S., CHALLAKERE DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA WITHIN THE JURISDICATION OF THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE BEING
ARBITRARY AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE
APART FORM BEING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
1.1. Call for the records in complaint dtd:
03.12.2016 filed by the respondent in FIR/Crime No.485/2016 by Challakere Police Station, Challakere, District: Chitradurga within the jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chellakere.
1.2. Quash the complaint dtd: 03.12.2016 and FIR in Crime No.485/2016 registered by the respondent by Challakere Police Station, -3- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 Challakere, District: Chitradurga, within the Jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Challakere, being arbitrary and opposed to law, equity and justice apart from being abuse of process of Court.
1.3. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just even including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.
2. On 03.12.2016, a complaint had been filed by the Food Inspector, Food Civil Supplies Department, Challakere stating that on 03.12.2016 around at 10.30 a.m., he received an anonymous phone call stating that rice belonging to the Anna Bhagya Scheme was being unauthorisedly stored in a godown. In pursuance thereto, the said Food Inspector visited the premises and found several bags of rice in the said godown. In furtherance of which Crime No.485/2016 was registered with the Challakere Police Station on 03.12.2016. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.-4-
CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016
3. Sri S.P.Kulakarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the rice from Prathik Trading Company and that because the source of rice being a valid purchase, no prosecution could have been initiated against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).
4. He further submits that the said rice is not of the Public Distribution System ('PDS' for short) and has been sourced from a third party-wholesaler. It is only if the rice had been from the PDS source that the question of initiation of proceedings under Section 3 and 7 of the Act would arise.
5. He relies upon the decisions of this Court in the case of M/s. Chamundi Roller Floor Mills Vs. State reported in ILR 2004 Kar. 4544, more particularly -5- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 in paragraph-12 thereof which is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
"12. In the F.I.R., it is only stated that original complaint copy is enclosed along with the F.I.R.
The copy of the complaint is not made available to this Court. According to the Government Pleader there is no separate complaint and the Mahazars drawn on 21-5-2004 is the only document to support the case of the Police. Then this Court has to look into the Mahazar to find out whether there are any allegation of violation of Sub-clause (a) of Clause 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 by the petitioner in the Mahazar. Annexure-B1 is the copy of the Mahazar drawn on 21-5-2004. From the perusal of this Mahazar it cannot be said that there is a violation of Sub-clause (a) of Clause 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. According to the Mahazar, the petitioner had possessed the wheat in excess of the quantity mentioned in the stock register. If there is an excess stock in the premises contrary to the stock register maintained by the petitioner, it cannot be stated that there is a violation of Clause 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. There is no prohibition for the petitioner to procure wheat of any quantity from private sources. But the petitioner is not expected to purchase or procure wheat from authorised dealer under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. If the petitioner has failed to maintain the stock register properly, it cannot be held that there is violation of Clause 18 of the Control Order. It is unfortunate that either the F.I.R. or the Mahazar attached to that, does not disclose any violation of Clause 18 of the Order. Without there being any iota of material alleged against the petitioner by the Police either in the Mahazar or in the F.I.R., Deputy Commissioner has -6- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 proceeded to pass an order under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the whole procedure followed by the Police as well as by the Deputy Commissioner has to be held to be bad in law. In the circumstances, this Court cannot accept the arguments put forth by the Government Advocate.
6. In the case of Mr. Chengalarayappa Kavali and Anr. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar Anr.
reported in 2015 (2) KCCR 1345 more particularly in paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof which is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
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 attracted. In the absence of such findings such action will not -7- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 attract penal measures including seizure or forfeiture.
15. 1st respondent has totally erred in not appreciating the objections filed by the petitioners which were supported by documentary evidence. Documentary evidence disclose that lorries were covered by national permit held by the owners. Three way bills produced disclose the name and address of the person consigning the goods and the name of the person to whom the goods were consigned. No other investigation is made by any of the authorities, let alone the 1st respondent during the course of enquiry regarding the falsity of the version of the petitioners with reference to the origin and destination of the goods. In that view of the matter, based on mere inferences, 1st respondent has persuaded himself to pass penal order which has drastic consequences. Therefore, entire approach adopted by the 1st respondent is illegal.
7. And the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Jayaram K and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P.No.101518/2017 dated 06.02.2019 more particularly in paragraph-7 thereof which is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
"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 food 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 -8- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 upon the receipt issued by the APMC which is annexed along with this petition and the same is dated 05.06.2017 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 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."
8. By relying on the said decisions, he submits the rice having been purchased from a third party, no proceedings could have been initiated and the respondents ought to have verified from the petitioner as to the source of the rice and only thereafter registered the FIR.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that when the Food Inspector visited the premises, there was no one in the premises. As such, the question of verification of the documents from any one would not arise. It is only after the seizure that the petitioner has approached this Court.
-9- CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016If the documents are furnished, the investigation officer would verify the veracity thereof and then take necessary action.
10. Heard Sri S.P.Kulakarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the papers.
11. Sri S.P. Kulakarni, learned Senior Counsel, has relied upon the decision in M/s. Chamundi Roller Floor Mills Vs. State reported in ILR 2004 Kar. 4544, which was a decision relating to a Miller having stored excess rice and the excess rice not being capable of being explained. This Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry ought to have been conducted prior to the registration of FIR. The same not having been done. The proceedings which had been initiated were bad in law.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 9689 of 201612. The decision in Mr. Chengalarayappa Kavali and Anr. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar Anr.
reported in 2015 (2) KCCR 1345 was one relating to a forfeiture order issued by the Deputy Commissioner where this Court came to the conclusion that before the forfeiture order was passed, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered the way bills produced by the claimant of the said rice.
13. I am of the considered opinion that both the above cases would not be applicable to the present case.
Inasmuch as in the first case, the Miller and the godown were identified and the Food Inspector could have verified from the miller as regards the source of the rice, in the second case in Mr. Chengalarayappa Kavali and Anr. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar Anr. Reported in 2015 (2) KCCR 1345, which related to forfeiture.
The way bills had been produced by the owner which
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 9689 of 2016 had not been looked into by the Deputy
Commissioner.
14. As regards, the decision in 101518/2017 dated 06.02.2019, it was a case where a receipt had been produced while purchasing the rice from the APMC.
In the present case, there is no such receipt from the APMC. The petitioner claims to have purchased the rice from a third party/private vendor. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that it would be required for the petitioner to furnish all the documents to the investigating officer and for the investigating officer to ascertain the veracity of the purchase bills, the due payments made thereon, and the source of rice at the third party/vendor as also to obtain a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards the source of the rice and only thereafter proceed with the matter.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 9689 of 201615. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to furnish all relevant documents to the investigating officer and directing to the investigating officer to consider the said documents, the petition stands disposed of.
16. Sri S.P.Kulakarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the necessary documents would be furnished within a period of two weeks' from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
17. The investigating officer is granted a period of four weeks' thereafter to verify and take necessary action.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70