Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayaram K. S/O Narayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2019
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101518/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYARAM K. S/O NARAYANA,
GODOWN OWNER,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
HOSAPETE TQ.,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201.
2. SRI SHASHIDHAR S/O. MAHESHAPPA,
DRIVER,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
NAVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUSHTAGI TQ,
KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231.
3. SRI SUDHAKAR S/O VEERABHADRAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RICE TRADER AND OWNER,
SRI SHUBHAM AGENCY,
R/O. PRASHANTH NAGAR,
GANGAVATHI,
KOPPAL DIST-583 227.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.T.BASAVANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY ITS TOWN POLICE,
HOSAPETE,
2
BELLARY DISTRICT,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. SRI C AJJAPPA ,
FOOD INSPECTOR,
HOSPETE TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIME NO. 118 OF 2017 REGISTERED BY HOSPET POLICE,
COMING UNDER JURISDICITON OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AND JMFC COURT, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT, FILED UNDER
SECTION 3 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT,
1955, BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND AMOUNTING TO ABUSE OF PROCESS OF
COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A. THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.06.2017 at about 9.30 a.m. the complainant has received credible information that these petitioners are 3 transporting illegally the rice item belonging to Government Annabagya Scheme with an intention to sell the same at a higher rate under black market in order to get wrongful gain in a mini lorry bearing No.KA- 13/B-3092 and based on that information the complaint ahs been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. The police have conducted the raid and seized 125 quintals of rice and the same was sent to FSL.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the owner of the godown and the second petitioner is the driver of the vehicle and the third petitioner is the person who has purchased the rice from the APMC and the very seizure of the articles is illegal and also initiation of proceedings against these petitioners is liable to be quashed in limine. The very 4 rice which has been seized is not the PDS grains and in this regard recently report has been received from the FSL and it is specifically mentioned that the results obtained for seized rice samples are not confirming to the results obtained for PDS rice samples and hence the initiation of proceedings against these petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law. The other contention of the petitioners is that this Court has earlier quashed the initiation of proceedings in similar circumstances of the cases by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this petition is also liable to be allowed and initiation of proceedings has to be quashed.
4. In support of his contention, the petitioners' counsel has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and brought to the notice of this Court the receipt under which the food grains are purchased by the third petitioner on 05.06.2017 and also brought to my notice the FSL report which confirms that the articles which 5 were seized is not the PDS rice and hence the initiation of proceedings is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the orders passed by this Court in different petitions quashing the proceedings in the similar circumstances.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP in his argument contends that when the articles were seized, the persons who were loading the rice did not gave any correct information and they gave the information that the same are purchased from different persons and in order to sell the same illegally loading the same and hence case has been registered, when the correct information was not provided and in view of granting of stay, the charge sheet has not been filed and fairly concedes that in the meanwhile the report has been received from the FSL that the seized articles are not the PDS articles.
6
6. Having heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned HCGP, this Court has to examine whether this Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
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 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 7 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. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.118/2017 on the file of the Principle Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hospet, Ballari District for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is hereby quashed. 8
The petitioners are having liberty to approach the concerned Authority for release of the food grains and if any such application is made, the concerned Authority is directed to release the same in accordance with law forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sh