Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2025CRL.P/101516/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash petition; PDS rice seizure from hotel; 370 kg rice; Essential Commodities Act S.11 cognizance bar; written complaint by public servant; police charge-sheet vs Food Inspector complaint; Rule 19 Control Order 2016 search and seizure; Clause 18(a) PDS Control Order; Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005; CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025; Justice Venkatesh Naik T.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli, for the offences under Sections 7, 3, 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, Sections 4, 8, 3(2)(i) of the 1981 Order, Sections 3, 4, 12, 18, 19 of the 2016 Order and Section 420 IPC, in so far as they relate to the petitioner, quashed. ¶¶56

Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023 against the petitioner are sustainable when there is no evidence that the seized rice was meant for distribution under the PDS or was obtained from fair price shops authorised to distribute such rice under the PDS. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

In the instant case there is no substantive evidence that the rice/food grains sold by the petitioner-accused were meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme or were procured from fair price shops authorised to distribute rice under PDS; accordingly the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023 are quashed in so far as they relate to the petitioner.

¶¶52

Ratio / Principle

Cognizance in the present case was taken on the charge-sheet submitted by police officers; this cannot be considered 'a complaint in writing by the public servant' as required under the Essential Commodities Act, Section 11 of which bars cognizance of offences under the Act except on a report by a designated public servant.

¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS, 2023) by the accused in C.C.No.372/2023 (Harapanahalli Police Station Crime No.154/2022 — Ss.7, 3, 6(A) EC Act 1955; Ss.4, 8, 3(2)(i) Karnataka EC (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order 1981; Ss.3, 4, 12, 18, 19 Karnataka EC (PDS) Public Control Order 2016; S.420 IPC), after seizure of 8 bags (370 kg) of rice from his hotel on 31.10.2022. Held: (i) no sample was sent to FSL and no evidence showed the seized rice was meant for PDS distribution or procured from authorised fair price shops; (ii) cognizance taken on the police charge-sheet could not be treated as the written complaint by a designated public servant required by S.11 EC Act; applying the Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.Nos.36438-439/2014 & 36542/2014 (GM-EC) (disp. 03.12.2014), petition allowed and proceedings quashed qua petitioner. (Venkatesh Naik T, J.; Dharwad Bench, 24.06.2025; NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101516 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SANTOSH KUMAR S/O. KRUSHNAPPA SHETTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. BANEGERI HARAPANAHALLI, HARANAHALLI-TQ., VIJAYANAGAR-DIST-583121.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION.

¶14

KOTRAMMA TKM,

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶16

AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. FOOD INSPECTOR HARAPANAHALLI, BALLARI-583121, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶17

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.372/2023 (CRIME NO.154/2022 REGISTERED BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.3, 6(A), 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM) PUBLIC CONTROL ORDER 2016 U/S.3, 4, 12, 18, 19 AND KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (STORAGE ACCOUNTS MARINATING VALUE NOTIFICATION) ORDER 1981 U/S.4, 8, 3(2)(1), AND ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 U/S.3, 6(A), 7 AND 420 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶26

Heard Sri. B. Anwar Basha., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jayaram Siddi., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

¶27

The petitioner – accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [582 of BNSS, 2023], praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023, on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli in connection with Harapanahalli Police Station Crime No.0154/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 3, 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 4, 8, 3(2)(i) of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981, Sections 3, 4, 12, 18, 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.

¶32

Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

¶33

On 31.10.2022 at about 4:30 p.m, the first informant received credible information regarding storage of fair price rice in Abhiruchi hotel situated at Harapanahalli town, which is belongs to the petitioner. Hence, the first informant conducted search and found rice stored in polythene bags in a hotel. Thus, the police seized 8 bags of rice weighing 370 kilograms. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner-accused, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

¶34

After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner-accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that he stored 370 kilograms of rice, meant for the Public Distribution System (PDS), with intent to use it for hotel purpose.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Sri. B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner submitted that it was improper for the police to register a case based on the complaint of Food Inspector. Under the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘E.C.Act’), a private complaint must be filed before the Magistrate for taking cognizance and under E.C. Act, the Food Inspector is authorized to seize the commodity for violations under the E.C.Act but not the police.

¶39

A perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that no

¶40

sample of the food grains was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that the seized grains were intended for the Public Distribution System. No evidence has been produced to substantiate that the seized rice was meant for distribution under the PDS or that it was obtained from fair price shops authorized to distribute such rice under the PDS.

¶41

Furthermore, Section 11 of the E. C. Act, 1955, expressly bars the taking of cognizance of any offence

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

punishable under the provisions of the Act, except on a report by a designated public servant. The Court cannot take cognizance of such an offence unless a complaint in writing is filed by the specified public servant. However, in the present case, the police officers registered the complaint, and cognizance was taken based on the charge-sheet submitted by them. This cannot be considered ‘a complaint in writing by the public servant’ as required under the Act.

¶45

The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36438-439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014

¶46

(GM-EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under:-

¶47

"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 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

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

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." 21. 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. 22. 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.”

¶51

9. In the instant case, there is no substantive

¶52

evidence to substantiate that the rice/food grains sold by the petitioner-accused were meant for distribution under

¶53

the Public Distribution Scheme, and were procured from the fair price shops authorized to distribute rice under PDS.

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8005 CRL.P No. 101516 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶57

The impugned Proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023

¶58

pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC., Harapanahalli for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 3, 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 4, 8, 3(2)(i) of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981, Sections 3, 4, 12, 18, 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, in so far it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

¶59

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶60

AM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar S/O Krushnappa Shetti 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

Mr Ajit S/O Sambhaji Malame Vs the State of Karnataka

Veerayya Alias Veeranna S/O Rudrayya Mathadanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanamanth S/O. Sathyappa Kademani, Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosha S/O. Late Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumant S/O. Dyamanna Malagimni Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kanteppa Ningappa Malangi Vs the State of Karnataka