IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 15226 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MUSTHAFA S/O HAMZA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ZEENATH MANZIL HALE ALIVE, BEACH ROAD KOTESHWARA VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576 222.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE BY SHO Digitally signed by KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION R HEMALATHA REPRESENTED BY Location: H igh Court of STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Karnataka AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN, DATED 12.04.2022, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, IN CC NO.988/2022, (CRIME NO.108/2020 OF KUNDAPURA PS) FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3,6 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The Petitioner challenges the order of cognizance dated 12.04.2022 taken by the Learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kundapura, in C.C. No. 988/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6, and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. The prosecution alleges that, as per the complaint made by the Food Inspector on 27.08.2020, and based on information received from police officials regarding hoarding of fair price rice in a house at Mepu, Koteshwara village, the Probationary Officer, Deputy Tahsildar, and constables of Kundapura Police Station conducted a search and found rice stored in polythene bags in a house. They found six persons who were collecting the rice, and the police seized 30,800 kilograms of rice. A case was registered against six accused, including the Petitioner/Accused No. 2.

3. After conducting an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet dated 25.06.2021 against the accused, including the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he stored 30,800 kilograms of rice, meant for the Public Distribution System (PDS), with the intent to sell it at a higher market price.

4. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it was improper for the police to register a case based on the complaint of the Food Inspector. Under the Essential Commodities Act, a private complaint must be filed before the Magistrate for cognizance to be taken. The Food Inspector may be authorized to seize the commodity for violation of the E.C.

Act, but not the police.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

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 meant 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 Essential Commodities 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,