Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O. Shekarappa Mundavad vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:896
CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102367 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SURESH S/O. SHEKARAPPA MUNDAVAD
AGE. 31 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HADAGALI TOWN,
BALLARI- 513101.
2. YOGESHA S/O. PANDURANA TUKAALI,
AGE. 28 YEARS,
OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. AJANAPURA VILLAGE,
AMBIJAGAYYA,
MAHARASHTRA.
3. SATHISHA MAHEDEVA DAKANI,
AGE. 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
OCC. DRIVER,
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
R/O. KAATEVADI VILLAGE,
PATTIHAL KARUVANDI,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka MAHARASHTRA.
4. SANDEEP S/O. DINKARA DAKNE
AGE. 34 YEARS,
OCC. CLEANER,
R/O. KAATEVADI VILLAGE,
AHMEDNAGAR,
MAHARASHTRA.
5. SUNIL S/O. DINKARA DHAKANE
AGE. 36 YEARS,
OCC. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O. KAATEVADI VILLAGE,
AHMEDNAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:896
CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023
MAHARASHTRA.
6. RAVINDRA S/O. PRAKASH DESHMUKHA
AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. OWNER OF THE VEHICLE,
R/O. SATARA,
MAHARASHTRA.
7. RAJESH S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA HARLAPUR
AGE. 42 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HUBLI.
DIST. DHARWAD -580001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, AND
SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY P.S.I.,
HADAGALI POLICE STATION,
BELLARY BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD -580001.
2. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S K
AGE. 52 YEARS,
OCC. FOOD SHERASTHADARRU
R/O. HADAGALI,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD- 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7 REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.
58/2021 PENDING ON THE FILER OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.
COURT HUVINAHADAGALI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 3, 7 AND
6(A) OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 SEC. 4, 5, 3(2)(i) OF
KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (STORAGE ACCOUNTS
MAINTAINING VALUE NOTIFICATION) ORDER 1981 AND SEC. 3, 4,
12 18 AND 19 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:896
CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER 2016 AND SEC.
420 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.V.M.Sheelavant and Sri.M.L.Vanti submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.200830/2023 disposed on 10th July 2023.
2. The learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum would not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In that light, this petition deserves to succeed. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows:
"06. 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.
07. Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 deals with powers of entry, search, seizure etc. The Food Inspector is -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:896 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023 one of the Officer authorize to conduct search and seizure. Clause (2) of Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 specifies that, the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure shall so far may be apply to searches and seizures under this Clause.
08. Section 100 of Cr.P.C. specifies that whenever any place liable to search or inspection under Chapter VII 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.
09. In the instance case, the search was made on a transport vehicle and not on a premises. Hence, there is no question of Food Inspector obtaining search warrant before conducting search.
10. The Food Inspector is authorized to conduct search and seizure of rice meant for distribution under the PDS, which is transported in contravention of the provisions contained in the Control Order, 2016.
11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.36438-439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014 (GMEC) 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:896 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023 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 offerfor 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."
12. The prosecution has not placed any material that, the rice seized from the possession of the accused is meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. In the absence of any corroborative material, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners - accused herein, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:896 CRL.P No. 102367 of 2023 ORDER I. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
II. The impugned proceedings in FIR No.147/2022, registered by the Sindanoor Rural Police Station, Dit: Raichur, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC Court, Sindhanoor, Raichur, is hereby quashed.
In view disposal of main petition, the pending I.As. if any do not survive for consideration and hence, they are disposed of."
4. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which is in unison, the petition deserve to succeed and the impugned crime to be quashed.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.58/2021, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Huvinahadagli, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 126