Mr Hasansab S/O Rahimsab Ittagi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2189 CRL.P No. 100181 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100181 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. HASANSAB S/O. RAHIMSAB ITTAGI AGE. 51 YEARS, R/O. HAMALAR PLOT, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL AND SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GADAG TOWN P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.

¶11

BASAVRAJ S/O. MADIWALLAPPA BHOVI AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. FOOD INSPECTOR, R/O. THAHASHILDAR OFFICE, TQ. DIST. GADAG-582101.

¶12

B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B KMAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.02.06 11:20:52+0530

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1437/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I COURT, GADAG AT GADAG WHEREIN THE CHARGE SHEET IS FILED AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 AND SECTION 18 OF ESSENTIAL CONTROL PDS ACT (GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.35/2022) IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2189 CRL.P No. 100181 of 2025

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and section 18 of Essential Control PDS Act, is before this Court seeking relief.

¶21

The prosecution alleges that, on receiving credible information, the vehicle which was driven by the petitioner was intercepted, and upon search and seizer it was discovered that the petitioner was transporting the rice/food grains meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme unauthorizedly without having any valid license or permit.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution has not placed any substantive evidence to establish that the rice/food grains seized from the petitioner was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

¶24

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36438439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014 (GM-EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under:-

¶25

"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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2189 CRL.P No. 100181 of 2025

¶28

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."

¶29

Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that, the allegation against the accused herein is that, they were transporting the food grains meant for distribution under PDS unauthroizedly. The charge sheet material does not disclose as to where the accused procured the food grains meant for distribution under PDS, and also no material is placed that, the seized food grains were meant for distribution under PDS. In the absence of any material that, the seized food grains were meant for distribution under PDS, the registration of FIR culminating in laying the charge sheet stands vitiated.

¶30

The Food Inspector is only authorized to conduct search and seizure of the food grains meant for distribution under PDS as specified under Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016. If a person is transporting rice which is notified as an essential commodity without permit, it is for the police concerned to seize the same by following due process of law.”

¶31

In the instant case, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the rice/food grains transported by the petitioner was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme and if the petitioner was transporting the rice/food grains unauthorizedly without valid licence or permit, it was for the concerned Police

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2189 CRL.P No. 100181 of 2025

¶33

Inspector to conduct search and seizer under the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by following due process of the law.

¶34

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶35

The impugned proceeding in CC No.1437/2022 arising out of Crime No.35/2024 registered by the Gadag Town Police Station, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - herein is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶37

HR Ct:VH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

Mr Hasansab S/O Rahimsab Ittagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hasansab S/O Rahimsab Ittagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sharanagouda S/O Bheemanagouda Hunagundi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sharukh S/O. Jamaluddin Sheik Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Sharukh S/O. Jamaluddin Sheik Vs the State of Karnataka

Abhishek K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Yashwanth Vs State by Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station

N Nagesh Kumar S/O H Nagarajayya a Vs the State of Karnataka