IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17396 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS) BETWEEN:

SRI. SHREENIVAS C. S.

AGED 60 YEARS OWNER OF M/S PRAGATHI ORGANICS, NO. 103/3, MELEKOTE CROSS, CHOWGONDAHALLI, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY AND:

Location:

High Court of Karnataka SMT. SUSHEELAMMA N.

FERTILIZER INSPECTOR AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.3169/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DODDABALLAPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Shivashankar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers:

"i) Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3169/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Doddaballapura.

ii) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/S UMARSAB Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, CRL.P.NO.100231/2025 Disposed on 22.01.2025, the Co-

ordinate Bench has held as follows:

"1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clauses 3 and 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “PDS Control Order”).

3. The case of the prosecution is that, upon receiving credible information that rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) was stored in a godown without a permit, a raid was conducted. During the search, it was discovered that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of rice meant for PDS distribution.

4. Admittedly, the prosecution has not produced any material to substantiate that the seized rice was meant for PDS distribution. Furthermore, no warrant was obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate, as mandated under Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order. The issue involved in this petition has been examined by this Court in Crl.P.No.200775/2023 and connected petitions. Vide order dated 5.7.2023, this Court made the following observations:

5. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted in the public interest to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain essential commodities.

6. Section 3 of the Act empowers the government to control the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities.

7. Section 7 provides penalties for individuals who

contravene orders issued under Section 3 of the Act.

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

9. Section 11 deals with the cognizance of offences and stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a written report of the facts constituting the offence, filed either by a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code or by any person aggrieved or a recognized consumer association, whether or not the aggrieved person is a member of the association.

10. Simply put, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under this Act only up