Karnataka High Court
Siddalingayya S/O Parappayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14809
CRL.P No. 102131 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102131 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDALINGAYYA S/O PARAPPAYYA MARIYANNAVAR,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KANAVIHOSUR, TQ: GADAG,
DIST: GADAG- 582 103.
2. NAGARAJ S/O HANAMAPPA GINI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: SANDIGAWAD, TQ: GADAG,
DIST: GADAG- 582 209.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.S. MOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed GADAG RURAL POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI,
by RAKESH S REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HARIHAR
Location: High
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Court of DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, ...RESPONDENT
Dharwad (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528
OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 IS PRAYING
TO QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 16.10.2021 AGAINST THE
ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2/PETITIONERS IN GADAG RURAL PS
CRIME NO. 03/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC II COURT, AT GADAG IN
C.C.NO. 3173/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14809
CRL.P No. 102131 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C. No. 3173/2021 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act.
2. The learned counsel Sri.Gourishankar H Mot
appearing for the petitioners 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.
2. The learned Magistrate, after accepting the
charge sheet, took the cognizance of the aforesaid
offences, and issued summons.
3. 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14809
HC-KAR
4. 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.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners - accused and the learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -
State.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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. 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-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14809
HC-KAR
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 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:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in C.C.No.455/2019
pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court at
Manvi, is hereby quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14809
HC-KAR
In view disposal of main petition, the pending I.As.
if any do not survive for consideration and hence, they
are disposed of."
3. The learned HCGP 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. 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.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 3173/2021
pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC II Court,
Gadag qua the petitioners stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK/CT-GTB
