SADDAM JANGI AND ANR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

In all these petitions, the petitioners-accused are sought

to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3

and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 18 of

the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution

System) Public Control Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as

'Control Order, 1992' for short), alleging that the accused were

transporting food grains/rice meant for distribution under public

distribution scheme unauthorisedly. The cognizance taken by

the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offences is impugned in

these petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused in all

these petitions would submit that, the offences under the

provisions of Essential Commodities Act are cognizable, and as

such, conducting of the investigation without registering the

FIR at the first instance is impermissible. In support, he relies

on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. He further

submits that the Control Order, 1992 was repealed by Rule 21

of the Control Order, 2016. Hence, he submits that the accused

cannot be prosecuted for breach of law, which was not in force

at the time of commission of offence and the same violates

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State submits that, there is no requirement under

the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and Control

Order, 1992 or 2016 to register the FIR before conducting

search and seizure. He further submits that, the charge sheet

material clearly discloses that, the accused herein were

transporting food grains/rice meant for distribution under Public

Distribution System (for short `PDS') unauthorizedly, and the

learned Magistrate, after perusing the charge sheet, has rightly

taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences, and the

cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant

any interference, and sought for dismissal of the petitions.

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and perused the charge sheet material.

The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted

in the interests of the general public, for the control of the

production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce

in certain commodities.

Section 3 deals with the powers to control

production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities.

Section 7 deals with penalties, if any, person

contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 10A specifies that, the offences under the

Act are cognizable.

Section 11 deals with cognizance of offences, and

specifies, that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence

punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the

facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a

public servant as defined in Section 21 of Indian Penal Code or

any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association,

whether such person is a member of that association or not.

To put it simply, the Court can take cognizance of

the offence punishable under this Act on a private complaint in

writing by a public servant or on a report in writing of fact

including the officer in charge of the Police Station after

investigation under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC.

case, in all these cases, the Food Inspector, who is the

Authorized Officer under the Control Order, 1992 and Control

Order, 2016 has conducted search and seizure of the food

grains/rice meant for distribution under PDS.

The State Government, in exercise of power

conferred under sub-Section (5) of Section 24 of the National

Food Security Act, 2013, framed Rules called as Karnataka

Essential Commodities Public Distribution (Control) Order,

Rule 19 of the Control Order, 2016 deals with

powers of entry, search, seizure etc. The Authorized Officer

under Rule 19, if has reason to believe that there is any