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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32605

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
PRAKASH S/O BASAPPA HEGADYAL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.RP 100163 / 2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100163 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

PRAKASH S/O. BASAPPA HEGADYAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALAGUNAKI VILLAGE, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HUNAGUND POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER KALMATH SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR Digitally signed by M KA A L L M LI A K T A H RJUN RUDRAYYA THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION & SET ASIDE Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench D + a 0 t 5 e 3 : 0 2025.04.22 14:44:05 THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.03.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.20/2012 BY II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.02.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.139/2007 BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUNAGUND AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE OFFENCES P/UNDER SECTION RULE 4 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LICENSING ORDER, 1986 AND RULE 3 OF KEROSENE (RESTRICTION ON USE AND FIXATION OF CEILING PRICE) ORDER, 1993 R/W. SECTION 7(1)(a)(ii)) OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel for Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.139/2007 and sentenced as under; has preferred in this revision petition.

“Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable Under Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licencing order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price) order 1993 R/W Sec. 7(1)(a)(11)

of E.C.Act.

Accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for Six Months and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months.

Accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable Under Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licencing order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price) order 1993 R/W Sec.7(1)(a)(11) of E.C. Act.”

3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Hungund Police Station, got a credible information that on 11.02.2008 at about 2.00 a.m., near Belagal Cross, accused No.1 being the owner of the Tanker bearing No.KA-28/8915 was in possession of 9,000 litres of blue kerosene worth Rs.85,000/- without any license or permit and thereby violated the Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993 which was punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essentials Commodities Act. Therefore, he formed a raid team and proceeded to the place and noted that accused was in possession of 9,000 litres of blue kerosene. Accordingly, the illegal possession of the blue kerosene was seized and sample was drawn from seized kerosene in the presence of panchas and panchanama was drafted and report came to be filed with Hungund Police.

4. Based on the report, a case came to be registered and accused persons were taken into custody and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. Thereafter, after obtaining the necessary report from the chemical examiner, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Presence of the accused was secured and after due trial, accused No.1 was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra.

6. Accused No

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top