Allowed¶32

Imamsab S/O. Maktumsab Gudageri, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2025CRL.P/100237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of cognizance; Essential Commodities Act Ss. 3 & 7; Karnataka EC (PDS) Public Control Order 2016 Clauses 3(2)(3) & 18(1); seized rice not sent to FSL; no material linking rice to PDS/fair price shop; abuse of process; S. 482 Cr.P.C./S. 528 BNSS; CC No. 7762/2021; Bendigeri P.S. Crime No. 33/2021; III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Hubballi; Karnataka HC Dharwad; Hemant Chandangoudar J.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in CC No. 7762/2021 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, quashed. ¶32

Imamsab S/O. Maktumsab Gudageri, Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned proceedings in CC No. 7762/2021 on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, quashed.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 7762/2021 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clauses 3(2)(3) and 18(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016 should be quashed, given the absence of material linking the seized rice to the Public Distribution System.

¶31

Court's answer

The police did not send the seized rice to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to establish that it was intended for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS).

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution has not produced any material to prove that the petitioners procured the rice from an authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution to beneficiaries.

¶30

Key takeaways

In the absence of substantial evidence linking the seized rice to the PDS, prosecuting the petitioners under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. (S. 528 BNSS) allowed and proceedings quashed. Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clauses 3(2)(3) and 18(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016 in CC No. 7762/2021 (III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi), arising from interception of a vehicle on 28.02.2021 carrying rice allegedly meant for government scheme distribution but intended for unlawful open-market sale. The Court found that the seized rice was never sent to the FSL to establish it was PDS stock, and that the prosecution produced no material showing procurement from an authorized fair price shop dealer; continuing prosecution without substantial evidence linking the rice to the PDS would be an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings quashed. (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; 18.02.2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3275 CRL.P No. 100237 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100237 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

IMAMSAB S/O. MAKTUMSAB GUDAGERI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMEN, R/AT. ANNIGERI AGASI ONI, NEAR DYAMAVVA TEMPLE, DHARWAD-580024.

¶7

NASIR @ DADAPEER S/O. HAJARESAB BADIGER, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. MASON, R/AT. ANNIGERI HALDODDAR ONI, NEAR CINEMA TALKIES, DHARWAD-580024.

¶8

HAJARESAB S/O. SHAREEFSAB BADIGER, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. GREEN GROCER, R/AT. ANNIGERI MURADKHAN ONI, DHARWAD-580024.

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OFKARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:06 +0530

¶10

DAVALSAB S/O. SHAREEFSAB BADIGER, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. GREEN GROCER, R/AT. ANNIGERI MURADKHAN ONI, DHARWAD-580024, NOW R/AT. AMARGOL, PINJAR ONI, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶11

(BY SRI. GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BENDIGERI POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3275 CRL.P No. 100237 of 2025

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 30.10.2021 AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4/PETITIONERS IN BENDIGERI P.S. CRIME NO.33/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI IN CC NO.7762/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 AND U/S 3(2)(3) AND 18(1) OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER 2016.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clauses 3(2)(3) and 18(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016.

¶24

The prosecution alleges that on 28.02.2021, based on credible information, a vehicle belonging to accused No. 2, driven by accused No. 1, was intercepted. Upon inspection, it was found that the petitioners/accused were transporting rice meant for distribution under various government schemes, allegedly for unlawful sale in the open market without authorization.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3275 CRL.P No. 100237 of 2025

¶28

Upon interception, the police seized the rice being transported in the vehicle. However:

¶29

• The police did not send the seized rice to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to establish that it was intended for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS).

¶30

• The prosecution has not produced any material to prove that the petitioners procured the rice from an authorized fair price shop dealer for distribution to beneficiaries.

¶31

• In the absence of substantial evidence linking the seized rice to the PDS, prosecuting the petitioners under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶32

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 7762/2021, on the file of the learned III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, are hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶34

JTR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

Imamsab S/O. Maktumsab Gudageri, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imamsab S/O. Maktumsab Gudageri, 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surakshit Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Vijay S/O Basappa Hukkeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Samundarsingh S/O Nepalsingh Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Shivalingappa Alias Shivakumar K. Maigur Vs the State of Karnataka

Bashirahamad S/O. Allabaksha Aralikatti, Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Rudrappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka