Suresh Singanal vs State At The Instance Of
2024 Latest Caselaw 3572 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Suresh Singanal vs State At The Instance Of on 6 February, 2024

Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                                                    -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC-D:2650
                                                             WP No. 100417 of 2021




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                           DHARWAD BENCH
                              DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                                   BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 100417 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
                      BETWEEN:
                      1.   SURESH SINGANAL,
                           AGE. 46 YEARS,
                           R/O. GANGAVATI,
                           KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL,
                           KARNATAKA STATE-583227.

                      2.   MASKI SIDDANNA S/O. MALLIKARJUN,
                           AGE. 47 YEARS, R/O. GANGAVATI,
                           KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL,
                           KARNATAKA STATE-583227.

                      3.   KALLAPPA
                           AGE. 67 YEARS,
                           R/O. GANGAVATI,
                           KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL,
                           KARNATAKA STATE-583227.
                                                                  ... PETITIONERS
                      (BY SMT. VIDYAVATHI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

         Digitally
                      AND:
         signed by
         MANJANNA
MANJANNA E
E        Date:
         2024.02.08
         11:19:40
                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
         +0530
                           GANGAVATI RURAL POLICE,
                           DIST. KOPPAL-583227,
                           R/BY STATE S.P.P.,
                           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                           DHARWAD.

                      2.   K.R. DEVARAJ,
                           FOOD SHERISTEDAR,
                           TALUK OFFICE, GANAGAVATI
                           DIST. KOPPAL-583227.
                                                                    ... RESPONDENTS
                      (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP)
                             -2-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:2650
                                      WP No. 100417 of 2021




      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO IT IS HEREBY
PRAYED THAT THE COMPLAINT FILED BY COMPLAINANT I.E.,
RESPONDENT NO.2 K.R.DEVARAJ ON 21.01.2021 BY REGISTERING
FIR NO.0054/2021 BEFORE GANGAVATI SUB DIVISION RURAL
POLICE STATION, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENSES
PUNISHABLE U/S.3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT AND
U./S.420 AND 201 OF I.P.C BY QUASHED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

1. This petition is filed challenging the registration

of criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act and under

Sections 420 and 201 of I.P.C.

2. The allegation in the complaint is that the

petitioners were transporting rice, which was meant for

distribution under the Public Distribution System.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in

Criminal Petition No.101739/2021 and connected matters,

disposed of on 16.2.2022, has held that unless the goods

in question were examined by the Forensic Science

Laboratory and certified to be an essential commodity

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2650

meant for Public Distribution System, the proceedings

would be unsustainable.

4. In this case, admittedly, there is no

certification by the Forensic Science Laboratory that the

rice that was seized was meant for Public Distribution. In

that view of the matter, in the light of the above

judgment, the petition is allowed and the proceedings

stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB CT:BCK