Allowed¶58

Shoukat Ilahi Awati v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025CRL.P/101717/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Dharwad Bench (Venkatesh Naik T, J.), 19.06.2025, CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025: petition under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 (Ss.3, 7, 23 & 24, Essential Commodities Act, 1955) over 637 Kgs of PDS rice quashed; followed coordinate bench rulings in T. Thippeswamy (Crl.P.No.5130/2023, paras 10-13: invoices/payment receipts must be verified and FSL report obtained to establish rice belonged to PDS) and relied on Raheemsab (Crl.P.No.201480/2023); HCGP did not dispute the law.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, Bagalakote District, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 7, 23 & 24 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. ¶58

Shoukat Ilahi Awati Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, Bagalakote District, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 7, 23 & 24 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, deserve to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the Coordinate Bench judgments in T. Thippeswamy and Raheemsab.

¶31

Court's answer

The issue in the lis stands answered by the Coordinate Bench judgment in T. Thippeswamy (Crl.P.No.5130/2023), quoted with approval; the learned High Court Government Pleader did not dispute the position of law; following it, the subject petition deserves to be succeeded.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, Bagalakote District, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 7, 23 & 24 of the EC Act are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed.

¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) — quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, Bagalakote District, for offences under Sections 3, 7, 23 & 24 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — allegation of unauthorised distribution of 16 bags of rice (637 Kgs) meant for the Public Distribution System — petitioner relied on the Coordinate Bench judgment in T. Thippeswamy (Crl.P.No.5130/2023), paras 10–13, holding that the prosecution must prima facie establish that the rice belonged to the PDS by verifying the invoices and payment receipts and by obtaining a Forensic Science Laboratory report, neither of which was done — learned HCGP did not dispute the position of law — following the Coordinate Bench decisions in T. Thippeswamy and Raheemsab (Crl.P.No.201480/2023), the criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 were quashed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101717 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHOUKAT ILAHI AWATI, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AVATI GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SHRI HARSHWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADV. FOR

¶13

SHRI RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶16

POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, JAMAKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. BAGALKOT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶17

AT: DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

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

¶19

NINGAPPA SHANKAR DESAI,

¶20

AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: STATE GOVT. EMPLOYEE, FOOD INSPECTOR, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301, REP. BY SPP, HCK, DHARWAD.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.247/2020 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 7, 23 AND 24 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

Heard Sri Harshawardhan M. Patil, learned counsel for Sri Ramesh I Zirali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.

¶31

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi, Bagalakote District for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 7, 23 & 24 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (“EC Act” for short).

¶32

It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No.2 – complainant being the Food Inspector filed complaint against petitioner alleging that, on 15.03.2019 he received a credible information that, one Mehiboob Mansoorsab Bagwan is unauthorizedly distributing the rice at his shop, which was meant for public distribution under the Government Scheme

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

and as such the first informant along with sub-staff conducted raid and found that no one was present at the scene and shutter was closed and they went inside by opening the shutter and found plastic bags containing rice and he also found that 16 bags of rice were found in all 637 Kgs, after verification it has been confirmed that, same were meant for public distribution system under fair price distribution. Therefore, the shop owner Mehaboob Bagwan was called for and the complaint has been lodged against him.

¶36

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed

¶37

charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 3, 7, 23 & 24 of EC Act. After receipt of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

T.Thippeswamy son of Sanna Thippaiah and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.5130/2023 disposed of on 29.08.2023 and in the case of Raheemsab and others Vs. The state of Karnataka and another in Crl.P.No.201480/2023 disposed of on 19.07.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioners therein. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5130/2023, has held at paragraph Nos.10 to 13, which are as follows:

¶43

10. The offense which has been alleged against the petitioners is for transporting rice allegedly meant for the Public Distribution System without valid license. For that particular purpose, it is required to prima facie establish that indeed the rice was belonging to the Public Distribution System and that the petitioners had no right over the same. It is but required that in respect of these prima facie evidence, the invoices and payment receipts, if any, produced by the petitioners/transporters would have to be verified by the Investigating Officer before filing a charge sheet.

¶44

11. In the present case, perusal of the charge sheet indicates that no such effort has been made and the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

invoices which are produced along with the present petition, which have been placed before the Investigating Officer have not been considered.

¶49

12. That apart, whether the rice belonged to the Public Distribution System or not could only be ascertained by necessary examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report being submitted thereto. The Investigating Officer has not caused such an examination and has gone ahead with the sale of rice on the premise that the same is perishable goods which require immediate sale. Even if the goods are perishable, it is required for the Investigating Officer to send the said rice for necessary examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report is to be obtained from the said authority.

¶50

13. In the present case, neither of the above have been done. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no legs for the prosecution to stand on and prosecute the petitioners and prima facie there is nothing made out to establish the offense being committed by the petitioners. As such, there would be no purpose in prosecuting the petitioners on such frivolous grounds without any basis.

¶51

Learned High Court Government Pleader has not

¶52

disputed the position of law as is observed in the case referred supra.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7857 CRL.P No. 101717 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In view of the issue in the lis standing answered by the judgment aforesaid quoted on all its force, the subject petition also deserves to be succeeded. For the aforesaid reason, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.247/2020 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, Bagalakote District for the offence punishable under Section 3, 7, 23 & 24 of EC Act stands quashed.

¶60

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶61

EM /CT-AN

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120

Shoukat Ilahi Awati v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukat Ilahi Awati v. 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

Mohammed Gouse Urf Sallu S/O Gousemoddin Masankatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mylappa S/O. Ningappa Dattappanavara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. B Sunitha Vs S N Constructions

Shivappa S/O Channaveerappa Goni Vs State of Karnataka

Bastu S/O Santan Lobo Vs State of Karnataka

Vishnu Alias Krishnaji Vs State of Karnataka