Allowed

Asha Devi v. the State by Tilak Nagar P.S

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023CRL.P/6020/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court held that once the authority had taken steps to cancel the licence due to violation of conditions, initiating a separate prosecution was unwarranted, especially given the unexplained delay in filing the complaint after the cancellation order became final.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution initiated in Crl.P.No.6020/2017 and Crl.P.No.9875/2017 against the petitioner for offences under the Essential Commodities Act was quashed.

Asha Devi Vs the State by Tilak Nagar P.S — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6020 OF 2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9875 OF 2017

¶6

IN CRL.P.NO.6020/2017:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHA DEVI AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. MALLESH, R/AT NO.37, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE BY TILAK NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

JAGADEESHAN C.N., AGED 37 YEARS, FOOD INSPECTOR, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., SOUTH ZONE, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560052

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶19

¶20

PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.13428/2016 ARISING OUT OF FIR NO.79/2014 DATED 15.03.2014 REGISTERED BY TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION.

¶21

IN CRL.P.NO.9875/2017:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. ASHA DEVI W/O. MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.92, BENDRENAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE BY TILAK NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURE-560 001

¶28

JAGADEESHAN C.N. FOOD INSPECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT, SOUTH ZONE, N.R. COLONY, BENGALURU-560 075

¶29

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶30

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF II ACMM AT BANGALORE CITY IN C.C.NO.13418/2016 ARISING OUT OF FIR NO.72/2014 DATED 13.03.2014 REGISTERED BY TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Crl.P.No.6020/2017 is filed by the petitioner (Smt.Asha Devi) challenging the prosecution launched against her in C.C.No.13428/2016 pending trial before II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶35

Crl.P.No.9875/2017 is filed by the petitioner

¶36

(Smt.Asha Devi) challenging the prosecution launched against her in C.C.No.13418/2016 pending trial before II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

¶37

The respondent No.2 initiated proceedings for cancellation of a fair price depot licence granted to the petitioner on the ground that when the respondent No.2 inspected the fair price depot on 10.01.2013, 24.01.2013 and 25.01.2013, the depot was closed. He claimed that the petitioner had drawn the food grains on 10.01.2013, 15.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 for distribution to 830 card holders in Crl.P.No.6020/2017 and 965 card holders in

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶39

Crl.P.No.9875/2017. As the petitioner had not kept the premises open on the dates of inspection mentioned above, the respondent No.2 broke open the doors on 30.01.2013 and found from the registers maintained that the food grains were distributed to 344 card holders between 18.01.2013 to 23.01.2013 in Crl.P.No.6020/2017. In Crl.P.No.9875/2017 the respondent No.2 inspected the same price depot and found from the registers maintained that the food grains were distributed to 510 card holders between 18.01.2013 to 27.01.2013. It was therefore, claimed that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the authorization which required her to keep the fair price depot open throughout the day for the card holder to collect the food grains.

¶40

Based on this, the proceedings were initiated for the cancellation of the licence in favour of the petitioner which culminated in an order dated 29.10.2013. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies under Rule 17(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, which too, was dismissed on 10.01.2014 and the order of cancellation of the licence granted in favour of the petitioner

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶42

was upheld. This order is not challenged and has become final. When things stood thus, long thereafter, i.e., on 11.03.2014, a complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2 alleging offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, contending that the petitioner had violated the conditions of licence and had kept about 339 kilogram rice, 58 kilogram of wheat and 36 litres of kerosene which was meant for public distribution in Crl.P.No.6020/2017 and in Crl.P.No.9875/2017, the petitioner had kept 80 kilogram of rice, 15 kilogram of wheat and 14 litres of kerosene. It was also accused that the petitioner had not maintained appropriate register. Based upon this, the respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.79/2014 and Cr.No.72/2014 and took up investigation and later filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.13428/2016 and C.C.No.13418/2016 respectively in both the petitions against the petitioner (Smt. Asha Devi), issued process and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against her.

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, if any terms and conditions of the authorization is violated, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against her, the authorization may be cancelled by an order in writing by the authorized authority in respect of one or more of the essential commodities covered by the authorization. He submits that when once the authorization itself is cancelled, the respondent No.2 could not have initiated further action to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He contends that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause, in as much as, she was suffering from high blood pressure and therefore, she could not keep the shop open when the same was inspected by the respondent No.2. He submits that the petitioner is not accused of hoarding or disposing off the food grains meant for distribution to the card holders and therefore, mere closing down the shop due to the reasons beyond her control, cannot constitute an offence.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶46

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioner in her statement had claimed that the shop was kept closed due to her ill health but a manager was appointed to look after the shop. However, she did not produce any documents in this regard. She therefore, contends that the petitioner cannot escape the prosecution on any ground, as the shop was inspected by the respondent No.2 and it was found that the food grains meant for distribution to the card holders were lying in the depot. She therefore, contends that notwithstanding the cancellation of the licence in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is entitled to prosecute the petitioner.

¶47

I have considered the submissions of learned

¶48

counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶49

The fact that the licence granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, is evident from the materials enclosed with the charge sheet. It is also evident that an appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies also dismissed and that order has become final.

¶50

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶51

No doubt, the respondent no.2 is entitled to take any action apart from canceling the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. It is noticed that the incident was reported initially on 10.01.2013, thereafter, on 24.01.2013 and then on 25.01.2013, the respondent No.2 did not chose to initiate any action immediately thereafter, but waited for the appeal filed by the petitioner to be disposed off by the Commissioner for Food and Civil Supplies. It is only after the dismissal of the appeal that the respondent No.2 woke up from slumber and filed a complaint before the respondent No.1 alleging commission of offence under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The cause for the delay is not substantially explained by the respondent No.2. Even otherwise, when once the respondent No.2 had taken steps for cancellation of the license granted in favour of the petitioner, initiating steps to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was unwarranted.

¶52

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed

¶53

and the prosecution initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.13428/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Chief

¶54

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41142 CRL.P No. 6020 of 2017 C/W CRL.P No. 9875 of 2017

¶55

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, is quashed.

¶56

In view of the order passed in Crl.P No.6020/2017, Crl.P.No.9875/2017 is also allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.13418/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, is quashed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Asha Devi v. the State by Tilak Nagar P.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Devi v. the State by Tilak Nagar P.S

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

Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri K G Suresh Vs Smt Jyothi S G

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mantri Sierra Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Chandran Vs State of Karnataka