Allowed¶43

Basavaraj S/O Mukappa Komarshetti v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2025WP/101036/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Essential Commodities Act Section 6(3); Sections 3 and 7 ECA offences; seizure of vehicle and goods; auction of perishable seized goods; return of auction proceeds to owner after quashing of FIR; Crime No.13 of 2023; Criminal Petition No.101123 of 2023 FIR quashed 18 May 2023; Deputy Commissioner Vijayanagar order dated 25-07-2024 declining auction-amount claim; writ of certiorari and mandamus under Articles 226 and 227; payment within four weeks; Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; Justice M. Nagaprasanna.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: the petitioners are held entitled to the amount the State received from auctioning their seized goods, and the State/first respondent is directed to pay that amount to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶43

Basavaraj S/O Mukappa Komarshetti Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the amount received by the State from auctioning their seized goods, following the quashment of the crime/FIR registered against them, in terms of Section 6(3) of the Essential Commodities Act.

¶40

Court's answer

In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, a person against whom criminal cases are registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and who is acquitted of those offences is entitled to the amount received by the State on auctioning his seized property; the seized goods being the petitioners' property, the petitioners, whose FIR was quashed, become entitled to the amount the State has received from auctioning their goods.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The amount lying with the State from the auction shall be paid to the petitioners without any delay, at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (Justice M. Nagaprasanna), Writ Petition No.101036 of 2025 (GM-EC), decided 17-02-2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Petitioners' vehicle and goods were seized in Crime No.13 of 2023 (offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, registered 21.01.2023); the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayanagar auctioned the goods as perishable, and the FIR was subsequently quashed (Criminal Petition No.101123 of 2023, order dated 18 May 2023). The Deputy Commissioner's order dated 25-07-2024 (No. AA NA SA/EC-PRAKARNA/02/2023-24) declining the claim for the auctioned amount was called in question. Holding that, under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, one acquitted of Sections 3 and 7 offences is entitled to the amount received by the State on auctioning the seized property, the Court held the petitioners entitled to the auction proceeds and directed that the amount be paid without delay, at any rate within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3199 WP No. 101036 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.101036 OF 2025 (GM-EC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAVARAJ S/O. MUKAPPA KOMARSHETTI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESSMEN, R/O: BANDRI VILLAGE, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, AND DIST: VIJAYANGAR – 591 222.

¶10

SANNIRAPPA S/O. YAMUNAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HAMPASAGAR, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 591 222.

¶11

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHALNINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.02.19 10:32:32+0530

¶12

ANAND S/O. MARIYAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: HAMPASAGAR, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 591 222.

¶13

MALAPPA HANUMANT YARIJARI S/O. HANUMANTH, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AMARGOLA VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR 586 101.

¶14

MALLAPPA REVUTAPPA BATAKURKI S/O. RAVUTAPPA, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3199 WP No. 101036 of 2025

¶17

R/O: KUNCHAGANUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,

¶18

DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 101.

¶19

BANDRI NAGARAJA. AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O: BANDRI VILALGE, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 591 222.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI MANOJ N. BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, VIJAYANGAR – 591 222.

¶24

FOOD INSPECOTR, KUDLIGI, TALUK OFFICE, KUDLIGI, VIJAYANGAR – 591 222.

¶25

POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, HOSALLI STATION, HOSALLI – 583 131.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25-07-2024 BEARING NO. AA NA SA/EC- PRAKARNA/ 02/ 2023-24 PASSED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT I.E. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGAR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO PAY THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT OF THE AUCTIONED GOODS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3199 WP No. 101036 of 2025

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶33

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶34

questions an order of the first respondent – the Deputy Commissioner, dated 25.07.2024, which declines the claim of the petitioners for the amount payable of the auctioned goods.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel Shri Manoj N.Bikkannavar appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA Shri Sharad V.Magadum appearing for the respondents.

¶36

3. The fats in brief germane are as follows:

¶37

On 21.01.2023 a crime comes to be registered against the petitioners in Crime No.13 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The result was seizure of the vehicle and goods in the vehicle. The petitioners aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings for offences as afore quoted

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3199 WP No. 101036 of 2025

¶39

knocks at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.101123 of 2023 and the said petition comes to be allowed at the FIR is quashed by the order dated 18^th May 2023.

¶40

By the said time, they Deputy Commissioner had auctioned the goods on the score that it was a perishable commodity. Therefore, the petitioner in the light of the quashment of the crime against him becomes entitled for the auctioned amount in terms of law. The law would be sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act and in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, a person against whom the criminal cases registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act gets acquitted of the offences is entitled to the amount received by the State auctioning the property of the petitioners, the property would be the seized goods of the petitioners. The proceedings against the petitioners has not stood quashed.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3199 WP No. 101036 of 2025

¶42

In that light, the petitioners become entitled to

¶43

the amount that the State has received from auctioning the goods of the petitioners. The amount so at the hands of the State shall be paid to the petitioners without broking any delay at any rate within a period of four

¶44

weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

Ordered accordingly.

¶46

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶47

VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94

Basavaraj S/O Mukappa Komarshetti v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj S/O Mukappa Komarshetti v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Genus Power Infrastructures Limited Vs Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited

Rukmini Yalebalikar Vs State of Karnataka

Pandappagouda S/O. Vittalagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Keshav Bhat, Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish S.V. S/O Veerbhadrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Basavaraj.S/O Shivaputrappa Anagawadi Vs the Managing Director