IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3481 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

MR GANESH RAM S/O. CHOLARAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT, SITE 40, SY. NO. 134, R.R. LAYOUT, VADARAPALYA, MALLESANDRA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE.

REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed by B BENGALURU- 560 001 K MAHENDRAKUM AR …RESPONDENT Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. M V ANOP KUMAR, HCGP)

KARNATAKA THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL IN CR.NO.502/2024 AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner challenges the order passed under Sections 497, 498, and 503 of the BNSS Act, 2023. An FIR was registered for offences punishable under multiple legal provisions, namely:

• Sections 3 and 7 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

• Section 4(1)(c) and Section 10(1) of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply & Distribution) Order, 2000; and • Sections 287 and 318(4) read with Section q

3(5) of the BNSS Act, 2023.

2. The allegations state that the petitioner was engaged in the unauthorized refilling of empty gas cylinders in a residential premises for commercial purposes without holding a valid license. During the investigation, the petitioner’s vehicle was seized, and the seizure was duly reported to the learned Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking the release of the vehicle. However, the trial court rejected this application, contending that the appropriate remedy was to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the learned HCGP representing the State.

4. Section 6A of the Act governs the confiscation of essential commodities. It mandates that whenever essential commodities are seized pursuant to an order under Section 3, a report of such seizure must be submitted to the District Collector without any unreasonable delay. Additionally, the proviso to Section 6A authorizes the District Collector to order the confiscation of any animal, vehicle, vessel, or other conveyance used in the transportation of these essential commodities, if there has been a contravention of the relevant order.

5. Accordingly, the complainant was required to report the seizure of the vehicle to the District Collector under Section 6A. Instead, however, the seizure report was forwarded to the learned Magistrate. As a result, since the report was addressed to the Magistrate rather than the District Collector, the petitioner’s application for the release of the vehicle was maintainable. In this context, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is deemed to lack proper authority. 6. Section 6E of the Act clearly states that when any essential commodity is seized under an order made pursuant to Section 3, including any vehicle used for transporting such commodities (which is held pending confiscation under Section 6A), jurisdiction over matters relating to possession, delivery, disposal, release, or distribution of the seized items lies exclusively with the District Collector or, where applicable, with the judicial authority appointed under Section 6C. No other court may exercise jurisdiction over these matters, regardless of any contrary provisions in other laws.

7. In the present case, the vehicle was not reported to the District Collector as required under Section 6A; instead, it was reported to the learned Magistrate before any confiscation proceedings could be initiated. This deviation from the prescribed proced