Allowed

Manjunath S/O Virupakshappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023CRL.P/103974/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court quashed criminal proceedings and FIR under the Essential Commodities Act. The court held prosecution lacks basis as the investigating officer failed to verify invoices or submit a Forensic Science Laboratory report before filing the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.172/2016 and proceedings in CC No.275/2020 were quashed.

Manjunath S/O Virupakshappa Harlapur Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103974 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA HARLAPUR AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BIDNAD, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

¶10

MANJUNATH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA HARLAPUR AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BIDNAD, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

¶11

MANJUNATH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA HARLAPUR AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BIDNAD, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.16 13:42:25 +0530

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY P.S.I TADAS POLICE STATION HAVERI BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶17

SHRI SHIVANAND S/O CHINNAPPA AJAMPUR AGE.30 YEARS, OCC. FOOD INSPECTOR R/O. SHIGGAVI DIST. HAVERI-581110

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 5 TO 7 IN CC NO. 275/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶23

COURT, SHIGGAON, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION, 406,420,465,468 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION -7 AND SECTION 3 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AND UNDER SECTION 18 OF PDS CONTROL ORDER 2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.275/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 18 of the PDS Control Order, 2016.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.Tippeswamy

¶27

S/o. Sanna Tippaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka in Crl.P. No.5130/2023, disposed off on 29.08.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioners therein. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as follows:

¶28

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶30

¶31

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners in the above case most humbly pray this Hon’ble court to be please to quash the FIR in Cr.No.172/2016 of Rampura Piolice Station, Molakamuru circle, Chitradurga district for offences punishable u/s 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and further be pleased to quash the entire proceedings pending in CC.No.489/2017 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC Molakalmuru, Chirtradurga District for offences punishable u/s 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as against them, in the interest of justice.”

¶32

2. On 26.12.2016, the complainant (Food Shirastedar, Molakalmuru Taluk) had received credible information that Eicher lorry bearing No.KA-16-B- 4335 was proceeding to Challakere from Bellary transporting rice meant for Public Distribution without any valid licence.

¶33

3. The said Food Shirastedar who is the defacto complainant went to the Rampura Police Station and informed the concerned PSI about the credible information and lodged the written complaint.

¶34

4. At about 3.00 pm., when the said vehicle arrived in front of Rampura Police Station from Bellary side, the vehicle was stopped by the police alleging that the contents of the goods in the vehicle were rice worth about Rs.45,000/- in 45 gunny bags and another set of rice in 170 plastic bags worth about Rs.1,36,000/- allegedly on the ground that same was meant for Public Distribution System.

¶35

5. A complaint in Crime No.172/2016 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the mahazar was conducted and upon investigation, a charge sheet has been filed on 08.05.2017, which is under challenge in these proceedings.

¶36

6. On an earlier occasion, the petitioners had

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶39

approached this Court in Crl.P.No.2048/2018, which came to be disposed of on 26.09.2022 in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.9689/2016.

¶40

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that paragraph No.14 of the said order in Crl.P.No.9689/2016 has not been complied with and as such, the charge sheet is required to be quashed.

¶41

8. Learned Addl. SPP, however, submit that in an earlier Crl.P.No.2048/2018, the petitioners had failed to bring to the knowledge of this Court that the charge sheet has already been laid on 08.05.2017 and hence, the question of following the direction in paragraph No.14 of the order in Crl.P.No.9689/2016 would not arise simply for the reason that the charge sheet had already been laid before the said order has been passed and thereafter, the seized material already having been auctioned, the respondent - Police could not send the same for verification to the Forensic Science Laboratory as required under the order in Crl.P.No.9689/2016. On this ground, he submit that the direction issued in paragraph No.14 being subsequent to the charge sheet having been laid and disposal of the seized articles could not be complied with and the same cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners now and the petitioners have to stand trial.

¶42

9. Heard Sri B.K.Chandan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondents and perused the papers.

¶43

10. The offense which has been alleged against the petitioners is for transporting rice allegedly meant for the Public Distribution System without valid license. For that particular purpose, it is required to prima facie establish that indeed the rice was belonging to the Public Distribution System and that the petitioners had no right over the same. It is but required that in respect of these prima facie evidence, the invoices and payment receipts, if any, produced by the petitioners/transporters

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶46

would have to be verified by the Investigating Officer before filing a charge sheet.

¶47

11. In the present case, perusal of the charge sheet indicates that no such effort has been made and the invoices which are produced along with the present petition, which have been placed before the Investigating Officer have not been considered.

¶48

12. That apart, whether the rice belonged to the Public Distribution System or not could only be ascertained by necessary examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report being submitted thereto. The Investigating Officer has not caused such an examination and has gone ahead with the sale of rice on the premise that the same is perishable goods which require immediate sale. Even if the goods are perishable, it is required for the Investigating Officer to send the said rice for necessary examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report is to be obtained from the said authority.

¶49

13. In the present case, neither of the above have been done. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no legs for the prosecution to stand on and prosecute the petitioners and prima facie there is nothing made out to establish the offense being committed by the petitioners. As such, there would be no purpose in prosecuting the petitioners on such frivolous grounds without any basis.

¶50

14. In view thereof, I pass the following

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶53

ii. The FIR in Crime No.172/2016 registered with the Rampura Police Station, Molkarmuru Circle, Chitradurga District, for offenses punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

¶54

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12282 CRL.P No. 103974 of 2022

¶55

as also the further proceedings in CC.No.489/2017 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District, are hereby quashed.

¶56

iii. All pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed.

¶57

Learned HCGP would not dispute the position of law

¶58

as is observed in the case referred supra.

¶59

In view of the issue in the lis standing answered by

¶60

the judgment as aforequoted on all its fours, the subject petition also deserves to succeed.

¶61

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The C.C. No.275/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 18 of the PDS Control Order, 2016 stands quashed.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

VNP /List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31

Manjunath S/O Virupakshappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath S/O Virupakshappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Garikipaki Indraneela S/O Mastan Rao G Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu Vs the State of Karnataka

Prof Basavaraj G Mirji Vs the State of Karnataka

Najer Mohammad S/O. Nabisab Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

D Suman S/O Subash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sameer Siddique Vs the State of Karnataka