Vishwanath B Patil Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 10186/2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 0262/2024 REGISTERED BY THE UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD. III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Accused no.1 in CC.No.10186/2025 pending before the

¶29

Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.262/2024 registered by University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), is before this Court in this successive criminal petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC.

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither in the first information nor in the charge sheet which is now filed against the accused, there is any mention of any order passed under Section 3 of the Act which is allegedly violated by the accused. Section 7 of the Act provides for punishment for breach of any order that has been

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

made under Section 3 of the Act. He, accordingly prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that

¶37

petitioner was the successful tenderer for shifting the food grains from KFCSE godown and instead of delivering the grains to the hostels, the same was stored in the private godown of the petitioner situated in Industrial Area within the jurisdiction of University Police Station, Kalaburagi. Petitioner has failed to offer satisfactory explanation for the same and thereby has committed the alleged offences.

¶38

Section 3 of the Act provides for powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities, and Section 7 of the Act provides for penalties for contravening any order made under Section 3 of the Act. The Control Orders made under Section 3 of the Act regulates the production, supply, distribution, transport, etc., of the essential commodities. Breach or contravention of the Control Orders made under Section 3 is punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act reads as under:

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

"7. Penalties. — (1)If any person contravenes any order made under section 3,—

¶43

(a)he shall be punishable,—

¶44

(i)in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of subsection (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and

¶45

(ii)in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months;

¶46

(b)any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government;

¶47

(c)any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the commodity shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government.

¶48

[(2)If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

¶53

[Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months.]

¶54

(2A)If any person convicted of an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine:

¶55

[Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]

¶56

(2B)For the purposes of sub-sections (1), (2) and (2A), the fact that an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under subsection (2) has caused no substantial harm to the general public or to any individual, shall be an adequate and special reason for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, or six months, as the case may be.

¶57

(3)Where a person having been convicted of an offence under sub-section (1) is again convicted of an offence under that sub-section for contravention of an order in respect of an essential

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

commodity, the court by which such person is convicted shall, in addition to any penalty which may be imposed on him under that sub-section, by order, direct that that person shall not carry on any business in that essential commodity for such period, not being less than six months, as may be specified by the court in the order]".

¶61

From a reading of Section 7 of the Act, it is very clear that any act of breach of the orders that are made under Section 3 of the Act, would amount to an offence which is punishable under Section 7 of the Act.

¶62

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRAKASH BABU RAGHUVANSHI VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH -

¶63

(2004)7 SCC 490 , has held that for invoking Section 7 of the Act, the primary requirement was violation of an order made under Section 3 of the Act. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of DHANRAJ & OTHERS VS STATE OF

¶64

MAHARASHTRA - 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2690 , placing reliance

¶65

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi's case supra and also on the judgment of another Division Bench of the said High Court in the case of RAKESH

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

M.JAIN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2014 ALL MR (Cri)

¶70

3144 , in paragraph nos.6 & 7 has observed as under:

¶71

"6. In Rakesh M. Jain (supra) the Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 7 of the said Act has held that unless there is any order made under Section 3 of the said Act that was alleged to have been contravened, there was no question of any offence under Section 7 of the said Act being made out. While holding so, the Division Bench to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a party relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi v. State of M.P., (2004) 7 SCC 490. It was held therein that for bringing an application under Section 7 of the said Act, the essential requirement was the violation of an order made under Section 3 of the said Act. As the prosecution sought to rely upon a Scheme framed by the State Government which according to it was an order made under Section 3 of the said Act and as such plea was not canvassed either before the trial Court or the High Court, the proceedings were remitted to the High Court.

¶72

7. The present case stands on a better footing inasmuch as there is no reference whatsoever in the First Information Report to any order having been made under Section 3 of the said Act being violated. The specific averments made by the applicants in paragraph 4 of the application have not been specifically controverted. In that view of the matter, in absence of it being shown

¶73

8 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1026 CRL.P No. 202107 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

that there was any order made under Section 3 of the said Act that had been contravened, the proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act would not be tenable. The continuation of these proceedings therefore would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In view of aforesaid, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof with no order as to costs."

¶77

In the background of the aforesaid judgments, if the facts and circumstances of case on hand is appreciated, it is found that neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet, the prosecution has mentioned or referred to the order that was made under Section 3 of the Act which has been allegedly violated or breached by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that on this short point, this criminal petition is required to be allowed. Accordingly, the following order:

¶78

Criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC.No.10186/2025 pending before the Court of III Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.262/2024 registered by University Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential

¶79