Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondent-

State.

The Police, after investigation submitted the charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 alleging that food grains

meant for distribution under public distribution scheme were

stacked unauthorisedly by the petitioner-accused. The learned

Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance

for the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking

exception to the same, this petition is filed.

3.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

submits that the petitioner-accused is a registered dealer for

purchase and sale of food grains and in the absence of

- 3 -

corroborative material that the food grains seized in the

godown of the petitioner-accused were meant for distribution

under public distribution scheme, the charge sheet filed by the

police is without any substance. He further submits that food

grains is alleged to have been seized without registering First

Information Report at the first instance and the same is

impermissible and violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution

of India.

4.

On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for

the respondent-State submits that the petitioner having

stacked food grains meant for distribution under the public

distribution scheme has committed aforesaid offences and

cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant

any interference.

5.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6.

The allegation against the petitioner-accused is that

he stacked food grains meant for distribution under the public

distribution scheme without any license. The petitioner is a

- 4 -

registered dealer, authorized to purchase and sale of food

grains in the open market, which is evident from the

documents appended to this petition. The charge sheet material

does not discloses that food grains seized from the godown of

the petitioner-accused are meant for distribution under the

public distribution scheme and in the absence of any

corroborative material, filling of charge sheet against the

petitioner-accused is without any substance. The registration of

the FIR before conducting the investigation is the normal

procedure established by law and in conformity under Article 21

of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P.

reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Hence, the conducting of the raid

without registering the First Information Report at the first

instance is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.

In view of preceding analysis, I am of the view that

continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner-

accused will be an abuse of process of law since the

probabilities of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

- 5 -

ORDER

i)

Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii)

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1234/2019

pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court,

Haveri, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47