Karnataka High Court
Shantinath S/O Devendra Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
CRL.P No. 100611 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100611 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTINATH S/O. DEVENDRA PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BASAVANAKUDACHI,
TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 124.
2. ANANDBABU S/O. GOPAL PATANGE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KITTUR,
TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 115.
3. KUTBUDDIN
S/O. HABEEBSAB BICHHUNNAVAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AMBADAGATTI, TQ: KITTUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 112.
Digitally signed by 4. SHAMBU @ JITTU
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL S/O. HARKISHANPASVANA,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad R/O: SAMBRA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI,
PERMANENT R/O: MATIHARI,
DIST: BAPUDAM,
STATE: BHIAR - 845 401.
5. VIKRAM S/O. VIDESHI RAM,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: SAMBRA ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
BELAGAVI,
PERMANENT R/O: MATIHARI,
DIST: BAPUDAM,
STATE: BHIAR - 845 401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
CRL.P No. 100611 of 2023
6. BASANGOUDA
S/O. SURESH NAYAKAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: HARUGOPPA, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(KITTUR POLICE STATION, DHARWAD),
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, CHARGE SHEET, ORDER
OF COGNIZANCE DATED 01.02.2022 AND THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO. 31/2022, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KITTUR, IN CONNECTION WITH KITTUR
P.S. CRIME NO. 158/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 3, 7, OF
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AND U/SEC. 18(A), 18(B),
18(C) OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER, 1992 PENDING
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO. 1
TO 6 AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIEN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Sri.R.H.Angadi 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
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
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
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:
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."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2018
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.31/2022,
pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kittur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
