- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2217 CRL.P No. 100519 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100519 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SAHIL DASTGIRSAB BHAGAWAN @ SAHIL BHAGAWAN, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HONAWAD, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586130. 2. SHRI. JAKHIR RASUL KAVALAGI @ JAKHIR KAVALAGI, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. TRUCK CLEANER, R/O. GANGABAVADI, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586130. 3. SHRI. SALEEM AINUDDIN MUDHOL @ SALEEM MUDHOL, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. JAMAKHANDI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY JAMAKHANDI RURAL PS, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY JAMAKHANDI RURAL PS CRIME NO.67/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 12:09:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2217 CRL.P No. 100519 of 2025 AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 HEREIN WHICH IS REGISTERED AS CC NO.520/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANAHATTI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offenses punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. The prosecution’s case is that, upon receiving credible information, the vehicle was intercepted, and it was found that the petitioners – accused were transporting rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System without authorization. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prosecution has not presented any substantive evidence to establish that the rice/food grains seized from the petitioners were meant for distribution under the Public Distribution Scheme. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State. 6. Admittedly, the respondent has not produced any substantive evidence to establish that the rice being transported was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System, nor - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2217 CRL.P No. 100519 of 2025 has the rice been sent for forensic examination. In similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 102147/2023 held as follows: “10. The offence alleged against the petitioners pertains to the transportation of rice purportedly meant for the Public Distribution System without valid authorization. To establish a prima facie case, it is essential to show that the rice indeed belonged to the Public Distribution System and that the petitioners had no lawful authority over it. For this purpose, invoices and payment receipts produced by the petitioners/transporters must be scrutinized by the Investigating Officer before filing the charge sheet. 7. In the present case, a review of the charge sheet reveals that no such efforts were made. The invoices produced along with the petition, which were submitted to the Investigating Officer, have not been adequately considered. 8. Moreover, whether the rice belonged to the Public Distribution System could only be determined by obtaining a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the Investigating Officer neither conducted such an examination nor sought a forensic report. Instead, the rice was sold on the premise that it was a perishable item requiring immediate disposal. Even if the goods are perishable, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to send the rice for necessary forensic examination and obtain an appropriate report. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2217 CRL.P No. 100519 of 2025 9. In the absence of such efforts, the prosecution lacks the evidentiary basis to substantiate its allegations. Therefore, pursuing the prosecution on such grounds would be baseless and unjustified.” 10. In the present case, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the rice was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. As such, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.520/2021 arising out of Crime No.67/2018 registered by the Jamakhandi Rural PS, pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Banahatti insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12