Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
P. Krishna Bhat, J.
Shri. Raosaheb —Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka Rep. By State
Public Prosecutor and Ors. —Respondents
Crl.P. No.101763 of 2017
Decided on 24.2.2021
Essential Commodities Act, 1955—Section 7(1)(a)(i)(ii) read with Clause 19 (a) & (b) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Cognizance of offence—Procedure followed by JMFC for issuing summons to present petitioner is quite strange—He has not come to any prima facie conclusion that present petitioner has committed any offence as alleged in complaint and he has not taken cognizance for such offence against present petitioner and mechanically he proceeded to issue summons to him while discharging applicant—Order issuing summons to present petitioner passed by JMFC is against all known canons of law and procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C.—There is absolutely no application of mind to facts of case by JMFC and order also does not disclose as to on what basis JMFC has come to conclusion to issue summons to present petitioner—In that view of matter, order insofar as issuance of summons to present petitioner is concerned, is liable to be set-aside—Impugned order quashed.
Held: The procedure followed by the learned JMFC, to say the least, for issuing summons to the present petitioner as accused No.3 is quite strange. He has not come to any prima facie conclusion that the present petitioner has committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and he has not taken cognizance for such offence against the present petitioner and mechanically he proceeded to issue summons to him while discharging the applicant-Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar. The order issuing summons to the present petitioner passed by the learned JMFC is against all known canons of law and procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no application of mind to the facts of the case by the learned JMFC and order also does not disclose as to on what basis the learned JMFC has come to the conclusion to issue summons to the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order dated 16.3.2017 insofar as issuance of summons to the present petitioner is concerned, is liable to be set-aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
a) The above petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 16.3.2017 passed in CC No.496/2012 on the file of the learned JMFC, Banahatti, insofar as the same pertains to issue of summons to the present petitioner is concerned, is quashed.
c) Liberty is reserved to the complainant/respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps, if so advised, to name accused No.3 in the complaint and produce necessary supporting material before the learned JMFC, Banahatti for arraigning accused No.3 in the case. (Para 8)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
P. Krishna Bhat, J.—In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.496/2012 on the file of the learned JMFC, Banahatti for offences punishable under Clause 19 (a) & (b) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and under Section 7(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The State of Karnataka represented by Agriculture Officer, Seeds, Fertilizers and Insecticide Inspector, Terdal presented a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against one Sri. N.M. Patel and two others alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Clause 19(a) & (b) of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and under Sections 7(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. By order dated 25.6.2012, the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti took cognizance for the said offences and issued summons to the accused. One Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar, who was summoned as accused No.3 filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below seeking discharge from the proceedings. By order dated 16.3.2017, the learned JMFC, Banahatti allowed the said application discharging Rudragouda Irannagouda Biradar from the proceedings and in the said order the learned JMFC being of the opinion that the present petitioner-R.R. Madar, who was working as Manager, KSCMF Ltd., Bagalkot, decided to arraign him as accused and thereafter, ordered summons to the petitioner herein.
3. The petitioner is calling in question the legality of the said order in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance taken for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioner is wholly illegal and there is no basis for taking cognizance against him as per the complaint presented before the learned Court below. He submitted that the complainant has not made any request/prayer or produced any material to show that the present petitioner has committed any offences and in fact, in the complaint, the present petitioner has not been named at all and therefore, the learned JMFC could not have issued summons to him. He, therefore, prays that the proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.
5. I have heard the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the petition papers.
6. In the private complaint presented alleging the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by the State of Karnataka, the present petitioner has not at all been named. On the other hand, accused No.3 is mentioned as Manager, KSCMF, Bagalkot in the complaint. The learned JMFC in his order dated 25.6.2012 has passed the following order:
“ Complainant present.
This is the complaint presented by the Agricultural Officer, Seeds, Fertilizer & Insecticide Inspector, Terdal, against the accused for the offence under Clause 19(a) & (b) of F.C.O. 1985 and punishable under Sections 7(i) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The complaint documents annexed with the complaint constitutes the alleged offences. Hence, cognizance is taken. The complainant being the public servant hence, sworn statement of the complainant is dispensed with as per Section 200 proviso (a) of Cr.P.C. There are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused. Accordingly, it is just and proper to issue summons to the accused as per Section 204 of Cr.P.C.
Register the criminal case against the accused in Register No.III for the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) & (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act.
Issue summons to the accused returnable by 14.8.2012.”
7. It is surprising that even in the said order, the learned JMFC has not noticed that name of accused No.3 has not been mentioned and only designation is mentioned in the complaint. Inspite of the same, he has taken cognizance agains
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
