Karnataka High Court
Ningappa S/O Kottreppa Padagad vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
CRL.P No. 103771 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103771 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
NINGAPPA S/O. KOTTREPPA PADAGAD,
AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: USAGIN KATTI STREET,
GADAG - 582 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION,
GADAG REP .BY
ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
2. MUKKAYYA S/O. SHARANAYYA HIREMATH,
Digitally signed by AGE ABOUT 44 YEAS,
VISHAL
NINGAPPA FOOD INSPECTOR, GADAG,
PATTIHAL
Location: High
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Court of
Karnataka
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASUMATH, AGA FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528
OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AS CC
NO.1838/2020 I.E. ANNEXURE-A (ARISING OUT OF THE COMPLAINT
IN G.T.P.S CRIME NO.28/2020) AGAINST THIS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC-I COURT, AT GADAG, OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7
OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, SECTION 420 OF IPC AND
KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (CONTROL) ORDER NO.19-2016 AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
CRL.P No. 103771 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C. No.1838/2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act and Section 420 of the IPC.
2. The learned counsel Sri.Subhash J Baddi
appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the
lis stands covered by judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
in Criminal Petition No.200423/2023, wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench has held as follows:
"The petitioners have been charge-sheeted
for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and
7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and
under Section 18 of the Karnataka Essential
Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control
Order, 1992, alleging that, they had stacked the
food grains in their house meant for distribution
under the public distribution system in their
possession without authorization.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
02. The learned Magistrate, after accepting
the charge sheet, took the cognizance of the
aforesaid offences, and issued summons.
03. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that, conducting of search and seizure of
the food grains stacked in the house belonging to
the accused is in violation of Clause (2) of Rule
19 of the Control Order, 2016.
04. The learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that, the charge-sheet material
clearly discloses that, the petitioners accused had
stacked the food grains meant for distribution
under Public Distribution System (for short PDS')
unauthorizedly and the learned Magistrate, after
perusing the charge sheet, has rightly taken the
cognizance of the aforesaid offences, and the
same does not warrant any interference.
05. Considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners - accused and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent - State.
06. The State Government, In exercise of
power conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section
24 of the National Food Security Act, 2013,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
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 one of the Officer authorized 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. Section 100 of Cr.PC specifically
prescribes that, search of premises can be
conducted by a person executing the warrant. In
the instant case, the Food Inspector has
conducted search and seizure without obtaining a
warrant as required under Section 94 of Cr.PC.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
Hence, the search and seizure conducted is in
violation of Clause (2) of Rule 19 of the Control
Order, 2019.
10. 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:-
"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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
such action will not attract penal measure
including seizure or forfeiture."
11. The prosecution has not placed any
material that, the food grains seized from the
possession of the accused was 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:"
3. The learned AGA would not dispute the position
in law, as is laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench.
4. The issue in the lis is also akin to what is
decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid lis. The
petitioner is dragged into the web of crime only on the
voluntary statement rendered by the co-accused and there
is no corroborative material against the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:630
5. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to follow the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the
reasons noted therein to allow the subject petition as well.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.
No.1838/2020 pending on the file of the I
Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC I Court,
Gadag qua the petitioner stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK/CT-ASC
