Cognizance under the Essential Commodities Act requires a written complaint from a designated public servant, not from the police, and substantial evidence must link the accused's actions to PDS violations.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. B. Anwar Basha., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jayaram Siddi., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State.

2. The petitioner – accused has filed this petition under Section 4 82 of Cr.P.C., [582 of BNSS, 2023], praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.372/2023, on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli in connection with Harapanahalli Police Station Crime No.0154/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 3, 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , Sections 4 , 8, 3(2)(i) of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order, 1981, Sections 3 , 4, 12, 18, 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order, 2016 and Section 4 20 of Indian Penal Code .

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: On 31.10.2022 at about 4:30 p.m, the first informant received credible information regarding storage of fair price rice in Abhiruchi hotel situated at Harapanahalli town, which is belongs to the petitioner. Hence, the first informant conducted search and found rice stored in polythene bags in a hotel. Thus, the police seized 8 bags of rice weighing 370 kilograms. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner-accused, which led to registration of FIR and initiation of investigation.

4. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner-accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that he stored 370 kilograms of rice, meant for the Public Distribution System (PDS), with intent to use it for hotel purpose.

5. Sri. B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was improper for the police to register a case based on the complaint of Food Inspector. Under the Essential Commodities Act (for short ‘E.C.Act’), a private complaint must be filed before the Magistrate for taking cognizance and under E.C. Act, the Food Inspector is authorized to seize the commodity for violations under the E.C.Act but not the police.

6. A perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that no sample of the food grains was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that the seized grains were intended for the Public Distribution System. No evidence has been produced to substantiate that the seized rice was meant for distribution under the PDS or that it was obtained from fair price shops authorized to distribute such rice under the PDS.

7. Furthermore, Section 11 of the E. C. Act, 1955, expressly bars the taking of cognizance of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act, except on a report by a designated public servant. The Court cannot take cognizance of such an offence unless a complaint in writing is filed by the specified public servant. However, in the present case, the police officers registered the complaint, and cognizance was taken based on the charge-sheet submitted by them. This cannot be considered ‘a complaint in writing by the public servant’ as required under the Act.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36438-439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014 (GM-EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under:-

"14. In the instant case, petitioners are not authorized dealers. They are not shown to be engaged in purchase, storage or sale of food grains which were issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system. Therefore, essential ingredient explicitly stated under Clause 18 (a) i.e., the goods / commodities must have been issued to the authorized dealer under the public distribution system is missing. No finding is recor