SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1205

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
KORAVARA SHIVARAJ S/O DODDAVEERAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 100909 of 2025



Petitioner Advocates:KAMALAKAR MOHAN SANKESHWAR ,Respondent Advocate:

The court ruled that without substantive evidence linking the seized rice to the Public Distribution System, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 3, 6(A), and 7 - Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016 - Sections 3, 4, and 19 - Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981 - Section 420 of IPC, 1860 - Allegations against petitioners for unauthorized transportation of rice meant for PDS; no substantive evidence presented to establish that rice was intended for distribution under PDS - Search and seizure conducted by the Food Inspector deemed valid under applicable laws. (Paras 1-22)

(B) Cognizance of offences - Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act specifies that cognizance can only be taken on a written report by a public servant or aggrieved person. (Paras 9-10)

(C) Repeal of previous Control Order - The Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 1992 repealed; offences committed under the 1992 Order cannot sustain post-repeal. (Paras 19-20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners accused of transporting rice without authorization under various statutes related to essential commodities; prosecution failed to provide evidence that the seized rice was for PDS distribution.

Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners due to lack of evidence regarding the intended distribution of the seized goods.

Issues: The main questions were whether the seized rice was intended for PDS distribution and whether the search and seizure were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence linking the rice to PDS distribution and ruled that the search and seizure were valid under the relevant provisions, emphasizing the requirement of substantive evidence for prosecution.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 3 , 6(A), and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ; Sections 3 , 4, 12, 18, and 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (PDS) Public Control Order, 2016 ; Sections 3 (2)(i), 4, and 8 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981 ; and Section 420 of the IPC , 1860, are before this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information, the complainant and his staff intercepted a vehicle and, upon inspection, discovered that the petitioners were transporting rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) without authorization. The seized rice was then sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to determine whether it was of standard quality.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State.

4. The issue involved in this petition was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No.200775/2023 and other connected petitions, disposed of on 5 July 2023, wherein paragraphs 5 to 22 contain the following ruling:

“5. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted in the interests of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities.

6. Section 3 deals with the powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.

7. Section 7 deals with penalties, if any, person contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act.

8. Section 10A specifies that, the offences under the Act are cognizable.

9. Section 11 deals with cognizance of offences, and specifies, that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of Indian Penal Code or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not.

10. To put it simply, the Court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under this Act on a private complaint in writing by a public servant or on a report in writing of fact including the officer in charge of the Police Station after investigation under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC. In the instant case, in all these cases, the Food Inspector, who is the Authorized Officer under the Control Order, 1992 and Control Order, 2016 has conducted search and seizure of the food grains/rice meant for distribution under PDS.

11. The State Government, in exercise of power conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 24 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, framed Rules called as Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2016.

12. Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 deals with powers of entry, search, seizure etc. The Authorized Officer under Rule 19, if has reason to believe that there is any contravention of the provisions of this order or with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfying himself that there is or has been any contravention of the order or with a view to securing information which he has reason to believe would help in detection or prevention of contravention of provisions of this order or diversion of PDS commodities, may require the owner, or occupier any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to committed.

13. Clause (2) of Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 specifies that, the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.PC relating to search and seizure shall so far may be apply to searches and seizures under this Clause.

14. A conjoint reading of Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act and Rule 19 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top