1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1411/2021 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. PARVATANANDA S/O LATE MARIKENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O VINOBANAGARA 60 FT ROAD, 14TH CROSS SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VINOBANAGAR P.S., REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU -560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA,HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CRL.A.NO.58/2020 DATED 18.10.2021 AND THE ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE JMFC-III AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.1197/2016 DATED 04.02.2020 AND 05.02.2020 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FROM ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. 2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.02.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent- State-HCGP. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.1197/2016 dated 04.02.2020 and also confirmation order passed in Crl.A.No.58/2020 dated 18.10.2021. 3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that the CW1 has received an information by S.P., Shivamogga on 12.05.2016 at 6.00 p.m., some persons were illegally stored the rice and wheat which was supposed to be distributed to the public through ration card and trying to transport the same at APMC gowdon No.26 and he was asked to conduct raid and take necessary legal action 3 against the accused. In pursuance of that information and instructions. The CW1 along with CW2 to CW8 went to the spot at 6.45 p.m., and conducted the raid and thereby seized the stocks of 279 rice bags weighing 50 kg each and 170 wheat bags weighing of 50 kg each along with lorry bearing No.CNS 6162 by drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P2, the same was stored in the gowdon No.26 and wheat and rice are supplied to distribute the same to APL and BPL card holder through fair price shop under the scheme of ‘Anna Bhagya Yojane’ notified by the Government of Karnataka. 4. It is also the case of the prosecution that they have purchased the said wheat and rice from Fair Price Shop at lower price with an intention to sell the same in black market and having registered the case and Police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and 4 Section 3 and Section 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act. The accused No.2 was apprehended at the spot and others who were involved in loading the same were ran away from the place, but it is the case of the prosecution that the gowdon belongs to accused No.1. Both of them have faced the trial since they denied the very charges framed against them. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and so also MO-1 to MO-3. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not plead any defense evidence. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly considering the evidence of PW3 who is the Assistant Director of Food and Safety Department and also the evidence of PW5–mahazar witness and also the evidence of other witness who are the raiding party witnesses and comes to the conclusion that the seizure was not disputed and no explanation on the part of the accused 5 in the 313 statement and seizure of both rice and wheat as well as empty bags, comes to the conclusion physical stocks of gowdon as well as rice and wheat bags loaded in the lorry are stocked illegally with an intention to sell in a black market. The receipts marked at Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 which are submitted by the I.O with respect to the seized rice and wheat bags and considering MO-1 to MO-3, electronic weighing machine, bag stitching machine and 125 empty bags of PDS which have been shifted to other bags comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any explanation by the accused regarding how they came into his possession and for what purpose he has kept the same, comes to the conclusion that accused No.2 is indulged in committing such offence and acquitted the accused No.1 in coming to the conclusion that no material to implicate the accused No.1 and acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Public Control Act. The 6 accused No.2 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act and sentenced to undergo S.I for 3 months and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall undergo S.I for 22 days and so also for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall undergo S.I for 3 months. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal is filed in Crl.A.No.58/2020 before the First Appellate Court by the accused No2/revision petitioner. The First Appellate Court on scrutinizing the material on record, comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the very conducting of raid and evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly discloses that this revision petitioner had indulged in the above offence. The very 7 availability of rice bags and wheat bags in the gowdon is not disputed and the possession of the rice and wheat is established in the gowdon No.26 of the APMC yard and also this petitioner was arrested in the spot and his presence is also proved by leading evidence of PW1 to PW5 and seizure also proved by examining PW5 seizure witness and recovery is also corroborated by the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and accused No.2 was also identified by the witnesses and seizure of MO-1 to MO-3 also proved. There are no material contradictions as to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he did not explain the same and also fail to give proper explanation as mandated under Section 106 of Evidence Act and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence and confirmation, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused No.2 would vehemently contend 8 that prosecution has not at all produced any document to show that rice and wheat which were seized at gowdon No.26 in APMC yard belongs to the petitioner and also not produced any document before the Court that wheat and rice are seized were meant for distribution through PDS system. In the absence of these materials, ought not to have been convicted and also no material is collected from which shop these rice and wheat are purchased and none of owners of the authorized persons for distribution of rice and wheat under PDS system has been examined to establish the allegation that the petitioner has purchased the same from the authorized persons. 7. It is also contended that evidence of PW1 to PW5 is not consistent and as per the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and as well as under PDS control order, books of account has to be maintained by the authorities as well as Fair Price Stock owners. The Trial Court ignoring the principles of appreciation of evidence, erroneously comes to 9 the conclusion that PW1 to PW3 was suggested that seal of Punjab Government an empty bags presumes that petitioner was in possession of the alleged stock and the same is not permissible and based on the suggestion to the witnesses, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the petitioner. In order to prove the fact that gowdon No.26 belongs to the petitioner, not produced any documents and no statement of owners from which shop PDS food grains were purchased was recorded. The counsel also would vehemently contend that offence under Section 3 is also not proved within the definition of Section 3 and 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) and the same also does not attract and no specific accusation is made in charge sheet for which offence it attracts. 8. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Section 24 of National Food Security Act, 2013 is clear with regard to the obligation of State Government for Food Security for implementation and monitoring of schemes for 10 ensuring food Security and State Government is responsible for implementation and monitoring of scheme of various Ministries and Departments of Central Government in accordance with guidelines issued by Central Government for each scheme, their own schemes, for ensuring food security to the targeted beneficiaries in the State. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act invoked clause 7 also, nothing is placed on record. In the absence of the material, both the Courts have lost the sight while appreciating evidence. Both the Courts ought to have taken note of these materials before convicting and confirming the order and not considered the same and not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no any legal evidence. 9. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court taken note of the material 11 consideration and convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act and sentenced to undergo S.I for 3 months and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall undergo S.I for 22 days and so also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall undergo S.I for 3 months. 10. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the Trial Court discussed the evidence of PW3 in paragraph No.16 of the judgment since he was secured after having received the credible information and he was very much present at the time of seizure and First Appellate Court also appreciated about the lorry was seized and wheat and rice was seized at the spot and this petitioner was arrested at the spot. The PW1 to PW4 are raiding parties and not 12 produced any document regarding the stock which was in his possession and the counsel also would vehemently contend that there was no any explanation and seizure also not disputed. The empty 125 bags were also seized and no explanation was given under Section 106 of Evidence Act. It owes an obligation to explain how he got the possession of the wheat and rice to be supplied to the APL and BPL card holders. The petitioner has not given any explanation regarding MO.1 to MO.3 and total denial in 313 statement. When such being the case, both the Courts have not committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as well as convicting, sentencing and confirming the same by the First Appellate Court and it does not requires any interference. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent- State and also having perused the material, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 13 1) Whether Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act and Section 420 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? 2) What Order? 12. 2) What Order? 12. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel for respondent-State and also on perusal of material on record, the scope of revision is very limited and if Court finds perversity in giving finding, then Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction and also to see whether orders suffers from its legality and correctness. 13. The case of the prosecution is that based on the credible information received on 12.05.2016 at about 6.00 p.m., and also the instruction, raid was conducted and 14 seized the lorry bearing No. CNS 6162 and also the rice of 279 bags weighing of 50 Kg each and 170 wheat bags weighing 50 Kg each and mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P2. Having received the information and also the instructions, the raid was conducted and PW1 was examined before the Trial Court who conducted the raid. He categorically deposes that he has received the information that illegally loading the rice and wheat bags in lorry which was supposed to be distributed under the scheme of ‘Anna Bhagya Yojane’ to APL and BPL card holders. It is also his evidence that he has sent CW1 and CW6 to the spot and got confirmed the same. Thereafter, he has got CW2 to CW5 to the Station with panchas CW7 and CW8 and went to the spot after giving an information to CW3 and found the persons involved in loading of the same and when they rushed to the spot, they caught hold of this petitioner and others ran away from the spot and he revealed his name and also found storage of rice and wheat to the tune of 279 15 rice bags weighing 50 Kg each and 170 wheat bags weighing 50 Kg each and also lorry bearing No.CNS 6162 and mahazar was drawn from 6.45 pm., and took the signature of panchas and in order to prove the same, examined PW5 who is an independent witness and also PW3 who also signed the said panchanama and he was also very much present. 14. 14. It is also his evidence that he has handed over the seized rice and wheat as well as MOs’ to Shivamogga and proper order passed by the D.C, Shivamogga and issued notice to the accused and also handed over the seized lorry to the concerned owner in terms of the order of the Court, but he claims that this revision petitioner reveals that gowdon belongs to the accused No.1. In the cross- examination he admits that he did not receive any information or document with respect to whom the said gowdon situated at APMC yard, but shown the document which containing the said gowdon belongs to one 16 Thandavamurthy and not of accused No.1-Pandu and admitted the document of Ex.D1. 15. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that against the accused No.1 is concerned, no incriminating material since the document shows that the same belongs to the G.S.Traders and one Chandrashekhar was proprietor of G.S.Traders and also he did not record the statement of the said Chandrashekhar and accused No.1 is neither a partner nor a proprietor of G.S.Traders and hence, comes to the conclusion that accused No.1 did not commit any offence. However, the Trial Court taken note of the evidence of PW2 and PW3. The PW2 is also a co-raider and he speaks in terms of the evidence of PW1, both with regard to raid as well as panchanama and particularly relies upon the evidence of PW3 who is a retired Assistant Director of Food and Safety Department. He also categorically says that on the date of raid, he has received a phone call from the PW1 17 that he has received the information indulging of transporting of the wheat and rice and he was called to the Station and he along with CW3 and Police officials went to the spot. The other accused went away from the spot and this petitioner was apprehended at the spot and found the lorry and wheat and rice. He also identifies the signature and panchanama Ex.P2 and so also seizure of MO.1 to MO.3. In the cross-examination, he admits that he did not get any complaint to conduct the raid but he volunteers that he has received the phone call from PW1 has been to be present and accordingly he was very much present. When the question was put to discrepancy, but categorically says that Karnataka State also getting the wheat separate by Punjab and wheat bags will be having Punjab seal. He admitted that he did not had any knowledge about procedure of bringing any agricultural producers into the APMC yard, but nothing is elicited with regard to the seizure 18 and drawing of panchanama, but speaks only about nearly 152-200 gowdon were situated at APMC yard. 16. The other witness is PW4 who is also a raiding party, he also deposes in terms of the evidence of PW1 and re-iterates the same that he was also raiding party and seized the same. 17. The other witness PW5 is panch witness and identified the signature at Ex.P2(c) and he also deposes about conducting of raid and seizure of wheat and rice, but he did not know the quantity of rice loaded in the rice lorry and he was very much present and he identified the Ex.P4- photograph. Having considered the evidence of PW5, in the cross-examination he identified Ex.P4-photo which was taken at the time of conducting the mahazar on the date of raid, he did not have work in the place where the alleged raid was conducted, but he used to do the patrolling at APMC yard and he had signed the same at 10:20 p.m., and 19 he has signed on the document on the instructions of Police. 18. Having considered the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and particularly the evidence of PW3 and PW5 and other witnesses who are the part of raid, their evidence is consistence and the fact that this petitioner was apprehended at the spot is not in dispute and also seizure is also not in dispute that Ex.P2 was drawn and Ex.P4 photograph was also shows that at the time of seizure, the said photograph was taken. The evidence of witnesses is consistent and regarding appreciation of evidence is concerned, I do not find any error committed by Trial Court since rice and wheat were seized and empty bags were also seized and MO.1 to MO.3 have been seized and how they came into possession has not been explained and in the accused statement, no explanation and only total denial in 313 statement and incriminating evidence has not been denied and witnesses deposes about drawing of mahazar 20 that is PW3 and PW5 in their presence only mahazar was conducted and they have been secured before conducting the raid and hence, both Trial Court and First Appellate Court considered the evidence available on record and rightly considered that against the accused No.1 no material and convicted this petitioner and he did not explain incriminating evidence and First Appellate Court also in paragraph No.14 in detail taken note of the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and conducting of mahazar in terms of the Ex.P2-panchanama and PW3 and PW5 are witnesses to the said panchanama and recovery is also corroborated by the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and seizure of MO.1 at the spot is also corroborated by the witnesses and it is the specific case that accused No.2 who is the petitioner who was loading the rice and wheat and no explanation even as mandatory under Section 106 of Evidence Act as observed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any 21 perversity in the finding of Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. 19. The other question before this Court is with regard to the very contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of Section 24 of National Food Security Act, 2013 implementation and monitoring of scheme for ensuring food security is on the State Government and it is the responsibility of the State Government for implementation of the scheme and no dispute with regard to Section 24 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and responsibility is on the State Government to monitor the same, but here is a case of indulging this petitioner in transporting the same which was supplied for the public distribution system and also the witnesses clearly deposes about the same, the same is of the PDS and also PW3 categorically stated that wheat is supplied by the Punjab and seal is also the Punjab. Though the same is for distribution of the same for public and 22 hence, the very contention that the same is not the PDS cannot be accepted and even empty bags are also seized and the same is also marked as material object and seizure is not disputed and witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court with regard to the seizure of the same and when such being the case, the very contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted. No doubt the Trial Court while convicting him, invoked Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act, but while sentencing invoked Section 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Act and Section 420 r/w Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and hence, cannot find fault with Trial Court since the case of the prosecution is that attempt was made to cheat the general public in transporting the TDS and Section 7 is with regard to Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control and rightly invoked Section 7 of Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public 23 Control and Section 420 r/w 511 of IPC and with regard to the legality and correctness also it does not requires any interference of this Court, both the orders not suffers from its legality and correctness and hence I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and question of exercising the revisional jurisdiction does not arise. Hence, I answer the point as ‘Negative’. 20. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE RHS