Allowed

R.Raghunatha Setty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2023CRL.P/4285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the FIR and granted liberty to apply for release of seized rice proceeds. The court held that while search under Rule 19 Essential Commodities Act is permissible, failure to obtain a search warrant under Section 100 Cr.P.C. without recording reasons vitiates the proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No. 142/2021 is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned; liberty to apply for release of auction proceeds.

R.Raghunatha Setty Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4285 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.RAGHUNATHA SETTY S/O LATE P RAMAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 3071, AC ABDUL ALI ROAD KOLAR MAIN ROAD BANGARPET TOWN-563114

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BANGARPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

REPRESENTED BY

¶14

THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶15

SRI ABHIJIT S AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, FOOD SHERISTEDAR TALUK OFFICE BANGARPET KGF-563114

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶20

THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 17.05.2021 AND THE COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.142/2021 DATED 17.05.2012 REGISTERED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANGARPET P.S., KOLAR DISTRICT, IN CR.NO.142/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,420 AND 477 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,6(a),7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT SEC.3,4,12,18,19 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER AND SEC.3(2)(I),4,6,8 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (STORAGE, ACCOUNTS AND MAINTAINING VALUE NOTIFICATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner-accused No.1, who is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6(A) and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Sections 3, 4, 12, 18, 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016, Sections 3(2) (i), 4, 6, 8 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage, Accounts, Maintaining Value notification) order 1981 and Sections 120B, 420 and 477 read with Section 34 of IPC is before this Court in this petition.

¶24

The Food Inspector, Bangarpet Taluk, lodged the FIR stasting that upon receiving credible information, alleging

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶26

that, the petitioner herein has purchased rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System (for short`PDS') and after polishing, selling the same to the public in the name of different brands. Upon search, the rice which was stacked by the petitioner was seized and thereafter the FIR was lodged with the Jurisdictional Police. The Jurisdictional Police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception to the same, accused No.1 is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, conducting search and seizure without registering the FIR at the first instance is impermissible in law, since the offences under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, are cognizable offences. He further submits that the search and seizure was conducted without complying with Section 100 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submits that, the accused No.1 had stacked the rice meant for distribution under the PDS and the veracity of the allegation against the petitioner - accused No.1 requires to be investigated, and at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶29

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 deals with powers of entry, search, seizure etc. The Authorized Officer under Rule 19, if has reason to believe that there is any

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶33

contravention of the provisions of this order or with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfying himself that there is or has been any contravention of the order or with a view to securing information which he has reason to believe would help in detection or prevention of contravention of provisions of this order or diversion of PDS commodities, may require the owner, or occupier any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to committed.

¶34

Clause (2) of Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 specifies that, the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.PC relating to search and seizure shall so far may apply to searches and seizures under this Clause.

¶35

A conjoint reading of Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act and Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 indicate that, if the Officer authorized has any reason that, there has been any contravention of the provisions of the Control Order, 2016, he can conduct search and seizure of the premises, in which, it is alleged that, the food grains meant for distribution under PDS is being stacked unauthorizedly.

¶36

Though the offences are cognizable, Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 empowers the Authorized Officer to conduct search and seizure so as to satisfy himself that, there has been contravention of the order, and there is no

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶39

requirement for the Authorized Officer to register the FIR, and thereafter conduct search and seizure of the food grains meant for distribution under PDS. However, the search and seizure of the premises is subject to compliance of section 100 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

Section 100 of Cr.P.C. specifies that whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter 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.

¶41

In the instant case, the search and seizure of the food grains were from the rice mill belonging to the petitioner herein. The authorized officer was required to obtain a warrant from the learned Magistrate before conducting search and seizure and in case of any exigency record reasons for not obtaining the search warrant. The reasons for not obtaining the search warrant is not recorded, and therefore, the conducting of search and seizure of the food grains stacked in the rice mill of petitioner herein was in violation of Section 100 Cr.P.C and the registration of the FIR stands vitiated for non compliance of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36191 CRL.P No. 4285 of 2021

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) The impugned FIR registered in Crime No.142/2021 by the Bangarpet Police Station, Kolar District insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 stands quashed.

¶46

iii) The petitioner/accused No.1 is at liberty to file appropriate application with the Competent Authority for releasing sale proceeds received from the auction of the rice which was seized from the petitioner herein.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

R.Raghunatha Setty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Raghunatha Setty 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivakumar. R Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shilpashree Vs the State of Karnataka

R T Mukunda Vs Shekar K S

Sri K M Ravindra Vs State by Kadugodi Police

Mr. C. Gangadhar Murthy Vs Janatha Seva Co. Operative Bank Ltd.