Karnataka High Court
Mareappa S/O Peddapap Mydur vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626
CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100907 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MAREAPPA S/O. PEDDAPPA MYDUR
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. NAYAKARAHATTI,
HOMBALAGATTI VILLAGE,
NICCHHAPUR POST,
TQ. HARAPANAHALLI TALUK AND
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583131.
2. AJJAYYA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA KORAVARA
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
R/O. 9TH WARD, NEAR UJJINI SCHOOL,
SL CHOWKI, TQ. HOSAPETE AND
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583201.
3. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. JEENAPPA KORAVARA
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. KORAVA ONI, MUTTIGI VILLAGE,
NICHHAPUR POST, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI,
Digitally signed by B
K
DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583131.
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
...PETITIONERS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH (BY SRI. KAMALAKAR MOHAN SANKESHWAR, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.02.25
18:00:22 +0530
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH HOSAPETE RURAL
POLICE STATION-583201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626
CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528
OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CONNECTION WITH C.C. NO. 2511/2022 (CRIME NO. 92/2022)
REGISTERED BY HOSAPETE RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 3, 5(1), 180, 181 OF INDIAN MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, U/S. 3, 6(A), 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
ACT, 1955, U/S. 3, 4, 12, 18 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL
COMMODITIES ACT (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC
CONTROL ORDER 2016, U/S. 3(2)(I), 4, 6, 8 OF KARNATAKA
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (STORAGE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINING
VALUE NOTIFICATION) ORDER, 1981, AND U/S. 420 OF IPC 1860,
PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT,
HOSAPETE WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1, 2
AND 3.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 3, 5(1), 180, and 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Sections 3, 6(A), and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Sections 3, 4, 12, and 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016; Sections 3(2)(i), 4, 6, and 8 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981; and Section 420 of the IPC, 1860, are before this Court seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information that rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) was being transported in a vehicle without authorization, the complainant, along with panch witnesses, intercepted the vehicle. Upon inspection, it was found that -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626 CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025 petitioner No.1--the driver of the vehicle belonging to accused No.2--was transporting the rice without proper authorization. The seized rice was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine whether it was of standard quality.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
4. The issue involved in this petition was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.200775/2023 and other connected petitions, disposed of on 5.7.2023, wherein, in paragraphs 5 to 22, the following ruling was made:
"5. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted in the interests of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities.
6. Section 3 deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.
7. Section 7 deals with penalties, if any, person contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act.
8. Section 10A specifies that, the offences under the Act are cognizable.
9. Section 11 deals with cognizance of offences, and specifies, that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of Indian Penal Code or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not.
10. To put it simply, the Court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under this Act on a private complaint in writing by a public servant or on a report in writing of fact including the officer in charge of the Police Station after investigation under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC. In the instant case, in all these cases, the Food Inspector, who is the Authorized Officer under the Control Order, 1992 and Control Order, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626 CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025 2016 has conducted search and seizure of the food grains/rice meant for distribution under PDS.
11. The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 24 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, framed Rules called as Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016.
12. Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 deals with powers of entry, search, seizure etc. The Authorized Officer under Rule 19, if has reason to believe that there is 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 or with a view to securing information which he has reason to believe would help in detection or prevention of contravention of provisions of this order or diversion of PDS commodities, may require the owner, or occupier 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 committed.
13. Clause (2) of Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 specifies that, the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.PC relating to search and seizure shall so far may be apply to searches and seizures under this Clause.
14. A conjoint reading of Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act and Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 indicate that, if the Food Inspector has any reason that, there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 2016, he can conduct search and seizure of the vehicle, in which, it is alleged that, the food grains meant for distribution under PDS is being transported unauthorizedly.
15. Though the offences are cognizable, Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 empowers the Authorized Officer to conduct search and seizure so as to satisfy himself that, there has been contravention of the order, and there is no requirement for the Authorized Officer to register FIR, and thereafter conduct search and seizure of the food grains meant for distribution under PDS.
16. Section 100 of Cr.PC specifies that whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place shall on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
17. A reading of the said provision indicates that, the search can be conducted in respect of the place after obtaining a warrant. In the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626 CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025 instant case, the search and seizure of the food grains were from the vehicles, in which, it is alleged that, the food grains meant for distribution under PDS were transported unauthorizedly. The Food Inspector, who is authorized under Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016, is empowered to conduct search and seizure without obtaining a warrant from the learned Magistrate. Hence, the search and seizure conducted by the Food Inspector is in accordance with the provisions contained in Control Order, 2016.
18. The petitioners - accused herein have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act including the provisions of the Control Order, 1992. Rule 21 of the Control Order, 2016 read as follows:
"21. Repeal and Savings: The Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order 1992 is hereby repealed.
Provided that such repeal shall affect:
(a) the previous operation of the said orders or anything duty done or suffered there under. Or
(b) any right, privilege, application or liability acquire, accrued or incurred under the said order; or
(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against the said order: or
(d) any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, application, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid: and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted continued, or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the said orders have not been repealed."
19. A reading of Rule 21 indicates that, the Control Order, 1992 is repealed with effect from the publication of 2016 Order in the official gazette, i.e. 10.6.2016. The offences alleged against the petitioners - accused are allegedly committed after commencement of the Control Order, 2016, and despite the repealing of the Control Order, 1992, the petitioners - accused have been implicated for the offences punishable under the Control Order, 1992. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India specifies that no person shall be convicted for breach of law, which is not in force at the time of commission of such offence. Hence, the registration of FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Control Order, 1992 stands vitiated.
20. 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:-
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626 CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025 "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 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."
5. In the instant cases, there is no substantive evidence establishing that the rice/food grains transported by the petitioners were intended for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme. Moreover, if the petitioners were transporting the rice/food grains without a valid license or permit, it was the responsibility of the concerned Police Inspector to conduct a search and seizure under -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3626 CRL.P No. 100907 of 2025 the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in accordance with due process of law.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.2511/2022 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosapete insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed.
7. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61