IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)
H.P. SANDESH, J.
Lalit Kumar Jain S/o Mohanlal - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.105358 of 2019 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 25-02-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 , 227 and 19(1)(g) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 154 and 482 - Police Act of 1861 - Section 44 - Sought for an order to declare proceedings - Demanding illegal gratification and grant such other relief - Order or direction to quash complaint and FIR - Whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the very registration of case against the petitioner as contended by issuing writ of certiorari - Whether he was transporting PDS rice or transporting the rice - Whether PDS rice or broken rice - Whether the petitioner is taking the advantage of Annexure-F and Annexure-G - Petitioner in the petition has contended that he is a businessman running proprietorship business under name and style of “Preetam Traders” and said firm is registered under APMC Act, bearing registration for transportation of notified agriculture produce and firm is possessing GST certificate bearing registration - Petitioner’s firm is carrying on the business of trading of rice and also stocks rice. The petitioner obtained permit from the APMC and he was transporting the rice in a Truck bearing reg. No.RJ-19/GE-0423 to Sri Balaji Trading Co. Hubballi as per permit - PSI, Tadas Police Station, registered the case in Crime No.1/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act against the petitioner – Held, judgment referred supra made it clear if non compliance of any obligation that has to be looked into during the course of the trial and not at stage - Petitioner has sought for quashing of very initiation of the criminal proceedings against him too for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and during the course of investigation whether the rice which has been seized is PDS rice or the rice which has been purchased under Annexure-F and G also has to be investigated and whether on the basis of the documents Annexures-F and G, the PDS rice was transporting or committed an offence under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act has to be looked into initial stage mere registration of the case cannot be quashed by this Court and the aspect whether the rice which was seized has to be looked into and the same has to be investigated. By exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court cannot invoke the same and quash the proceedings of very initiation of law set in motion to investigate the matter and I have already pointed out investigation is domain of Investigation Officer, this Court cannot interfere in the investigation - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
Heard the petitioner’s counsel, learned AGA for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sought for an order to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the complaint and FIR registered in Tadas Police Station in Crime No.1/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and further sought for an order to declare that the proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and seizing the rice and truck is illegal and the said provisions are not applicable to the petitioner and further direction may be issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to indemnify the petitioner for the loss of the goodwill and registering the false case against the petitioner and also take appropriate action against the respondents for demanding illegal gratification and grant such other relief, as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner in the petition has contended that he is a businessman running proprietorship business under the name and style of “Preetam Traders” and said firm is registered under the APMC Act, bearing registration No.KT46883, for transportation of notified agriculture produce and firm is possessing GST certificate bearing registration No.29BGPPJ3608F1Z8. The petitioner’s firm is carrying on the business of trading of rice and also stocks rice. The petitioner obtained permit from the APMC and he was transporting the rice in a Truck bearing reg. No.RJ-19/GE-0423 to Sri Balaji Trading Co. Hubballi as per the permit. The PSI, Tadas Police Station, registered the case in Crime No.1/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint filed by 2nd respondent, seized the rice and Truck belonging to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was transporting the PDS rice illegally.
4. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the 2nd respondent has intercepted the truck and seized the rice belonging to the petitioner at about 1 ‘o’ clock afternoon on 9.1.2019 and he has sent Whatsapp message to the 5th respondent to verify about the correctness of bill and permit at about 10.19 p.m. when the 5th respondent informed about correctness of the bill and permit of APMC, colluding with respondent Nos.3 and 4, he demanded 4 lakhs illegal gratification. When the petitioner refused to comply their demand, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have concocted story and seized the Truck and Rice alleging that it is PDS rice, showing seizure on 10.01.2019 i.e. after 1 day. The Whatsapp photo copy and petrol pump bill clearly reveals about the concoction of the story by respondents No.2 to 4 and filing of the false complaint amounts to abuse of the process.
5. The other contention is that seizure of the rice, registration of the complaint and FIR under Section 3 and 7 of the Act is illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that the said provisions is applicable only to the persons who are holder of authorization under the KEC(PDS) Control Order, 1992. In the instant case, the petitioner is not a holder of authorization under PDS system, he is an independent Trader having APMC license, therefore, question of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act does not arise, hence, the applicability of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act is unknown to law and the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. The other contention is that the seizure of rice and Truck conducted by the respondents No.2 and 3 is illegal and arbitrary and there is no iota of evidence to show that the rice belon
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.