- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11764 CRL.P No. 1780 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1780 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O BHEEMAPPA HOSPETE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A HOLEMODALPURA, KOPPAL - 583 225. 2. SRI. GURURAJ SHETTY @ GURU, S/O HANUMANTHAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A POTHNAL VILLAGE, MANAVI, RAICHUR -584 123. 3. SRI. MARUTI, (OWNER OF LORRY MENTIONED AT ACCUSED NO. 5) S/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A WARD NO. 7, HOLEMUDLAPUR, KOPPAL 583 233. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY IMANGALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11764 CRL.P No. 1780 of 2025 2. SRI. LINGARAJU S., FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT HIRIYUR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITRADURGA 572 143. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR REGISTERED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT - POLICE (IMANGALAL P.S) IN CR.NO.9/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1,2&5) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 3 & 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955 AND SEC.18 OF THE PDS CONTROLLING ODDER 1992 (ANNEXURE-A) AND (b) AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-POLICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3, who are under investigation for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clause 18 of the PDS Control Order, 1992, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that, upon receiving credible information that rice meant for distribution under the public distribution system was being transported unauthorizedly, the complainant and his staff intercepted the vehicle. Upon inspection, it was found that the petitioners were indeed transporting the rice meant for distribution under the public distribution system without proper authorization. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11764 CRL.P No. 1780 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 (State) were heard. 4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.36438-439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014 (GM-EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under:- "14. In the instant case, petitioners are not authorized dealers. They are not shown to be engaged in purchase, storage or sale of food grains which were issued to the authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system. Therefore, essential ingredient explicitly stated under Clause 18 (a) i.e., the goods / commodities must have been issued to the authorized dealer under the public distribution system is missing. No finding is recorded by the 1st respondent in this regard. In fact, there is no material whatsoever to indicate this aspect. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, unless there is material to show that the commodities were issued to an authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system or that a person other than the authorized dealer had sought to purchase or sell or store or offer for sale food grains meant for distribution under public distribution system through the price depots, prohibition contained under Clause 18 (a) of the Control Order would not be attracted. In the absence of such findings such action will not attract penal measure including seizure or forfeiture." 5. In the instant case, the prosecution has not sent the sample of rice seized from the petitioners to the FSL to establish that the rice was meant for distribution under the public distribution system. Furthermore, the prosecution has not placed any material to substantiate that the petitioners were authorized to distribute the rice to the beneficiaries. The petitioners have annexed copies of an invoice showing the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11764 CRL.P No. 1780 of 2025 purchase of the rice from Sri Pavan Trading Company, as well as a license issued by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Manvi, for trading in rice. 6. In the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the evidence that the petitioners were transporting rice meant for distribution under the public distribution system, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners—accused herein—would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.009/2025 registered by the respondent No.1 - Imangala Police Station insofar as it relates to the petitioners - accused herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6