- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200586 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MANIKANTH S/O NARENDRA RATHOD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: POLITICIAN, R/AT. H.NO.B-G 6, BHARATH PRIDE APARTMENT, OPPOSITE LAHOTI MOTORS, HUMANABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH NARONA POLICE STATION, TQ. ALAND AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585302, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.2136/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ALAND, WHICH Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 WAS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF CASE REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.167/2024 AND FILED CHARGE SHEET BY THE ALAND POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 3 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT AND RULE 18 OF PDS CONTROL ORDER 1992 TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2136/2025 (arising out of Crime No.167/2024 registered by Narona Police Station) pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Aland, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 and Rule 18 of the PDS Control Order, 1992. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 3. Factual matrix of the case: It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant who is the Food Inspector working in the office of the Tahsildar, Aland, filed a complaint stating that he was summoned by Narona Police Station and further, he was informed that the respondents have apprehended two accused persons and also seized a lorry containing rice bags and requested the complainant to verify the same and submit the report. As per the request, the complainant went to police station on 25.10.2024 around 1.30 p.m., and found that a lorry bearing registration No.KA.32/AA-9529 was parked in the premises of the respondent-Police with fully loaded rice bags. The complainant after verifying the lorry and the goods therein, asked the driver to show the documents regarding transportation of the said rice bags. However, the lorry driver did not produce any documents. After thorough enquiry, the complainant found that the said rice bags were being transported illegally and in contravention of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, he lodged - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 a complaint before the respondent-Police. Based on the complaint, the respondent-Police registered the case in Crime No.167/2024 and conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 4. Heard Sri.B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Siddaling P.Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR. However, during the investigation, his name has been included deliberately with malafide intention to implicate him in the false case. 6. It is further submitted that merely because, there is a statement made by the co-accused against the petitioner, the petitioner ought not to have been arrayed as accused. Moreover, the respondent-Police have failed to produce any documents to show that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill to which the accused were transporting the said rice. In the absence of any concrete materials to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 show that the petitioner herein had also been involved in the said incident, it cannot be said that the rice was being transported illegally to the rice mill of the petitioner. 7. It is his further submission that even though it is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill, the fact remains that, he had given sub-let of the said rice mill to some other person and the person who is the tenant of the said rice mill had produced the documents thereof to show that he has been incharge of the said rice mill from 09.01.2021. Such being the case, mere mentioning the name of the petitioner as the owner of the rice mill and implicating him in a false case on the strength of the voluntary statement of the co-accused cannot be proper and the same would not be sustained. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 8. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender. There are several cases pending against him. Moreover, he is a rowdy sheeter. Even though he is stated to have given the rice mill on sublet, the fact remains - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 that, he is the incharge of the said rice mill and also looking after the day-to-day affairs of the said rice mill. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the complaint and charge sheet, it appears from the records that the respondent-Police have seized the PDS rice and also arrested accused persons. On enquiry, they learnt that the said rice was being transported to Maharashtra wherein the petitioner stated to be running the rice mill. On reading the entire averments of the charge sheet, the respondent-Police have not produced any documents to show that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill of which PDS rice was being transported. 10. It is needless to say that the voluntary statement of the accused made against the co-accused when they were in the custody of the police cannot be admissible in evidence. In this case, except the voluntary statement of the accused, nothing is there to show that the petitioner is involved in the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2219 CRL.P No. 200586 of 2025 said transportation of PDS rice. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 11. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.2136/2025 (arising out of Crime No.167/2024 of Narona Police Station) pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Aland, as against the petitioner are quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT:PK