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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. SHANTHAMURTHY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


O R D E R

Heard Shri S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. It is stated that the second respondent, a Police Inspector, has filed a complaint at 11.15 a.m. on 21.01.2014 alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, alleging that the petitioners were in the process of transporting bags of food-grains containing rice in a tankar model 909 vehicle, contrary to law and it was suspected that the food-grains were brought from Karnataka Anna Bhagya Scheme. On those allegations of the second respondent who is said to be Police Inspector who was said to be on patrol duty, a case has been registered and the vehicle carrying the food-grains has been seized. It is this which is under challenge in the present petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Paragraph 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 provides as follows:

“19. Powers of Entry, Search, Seizure, etc.: (1) The Director of Food and Civil Supplies, the Joint Directors of Food and Civil Supplies, or the Tahsildar of a taluk, and Authorized Authority or any other officer of the Department

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top