- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100163 OF 2019 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O. BASAPPA HEGADYAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALAGUNAKI VILLAGE, TQ. INDI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HUNAGUND POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION & SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.03.2019 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.20/2012 BY II-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 21.02.2012 PASSED IN C.C.NO.139/2007 BY PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUNAGUND AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED FROM THE OFFENCES P/UNDER SECTION RULE 4 OF KARNATAKA ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LICENSING ORDER, 1986 AND RULE 3 OF KEROSENE (RESTRICTION ON USE AND FIXATION OF CEILING PRICE) ORDER, 1993 R/W. SECTION 7(1)(a)(ii)) OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.22 14:44:05 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel for Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Accused who suffered an order of conviction in CC No.139/2007 and sentenced as under; has preferred in this revision petition. “Acting U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable Under Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licencing order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price) order 1993 R/W Sec. 7(1)(a)(11) of E.C.Act. Accused No.1 shall undergo S.I. for Six Months and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 Accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable Under Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licencing order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price) order 1993 R/W Sec.7(1)(a)(11) of E.C. Act.” 3. Facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Sub-Inspector of Police, Hungund Police Station, got a credible information that on 11.02.2008 at about 2.00 a.m., near Belagal Cross, accused No.1 being the owner of the Tanker bearing No.KA-28/8915 was in possession of 9,000 litres of blue kerosene worth Rs.85,000/- without any license or permit and thereby violated the Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993 which was punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essentials Commodities Act. Therefore, he formed a raid team and proceeded to the place and noted that accused was in possession of 9,000 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 litres of blue kerosene. Accordingly, the illegal possession of the blue kerosene was seized and sample was drawn from seized kerosene in the presence of panchas and panchanama was drafted and report came to be filed with Hungund Police. 4. Based on the report, a case came to be registered and accused persons were taken into custody and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. Thereafter, after obtaining the necessary report from the chemical examiner, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Presence of the accused was secured and after due trial, accused No.1 was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as referred to supra. 6. Accused No.2 has been acquitted and State did not file any appeal against acquittal of accused No.2. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.20/2012. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by considered judgement dated 21.03.2019 dismissed the appeal on merits and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 9. Being further aggrieved by same, accused No.1 has preferred the present revision petition. 10. Sri.B.G.Indi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmities and perversity besides patent factual errors resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 11. Alternatively, Sri.B.G.Indi, would contend that in the event this Court up holding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender, custody period already undergone by accused No.1 may be treated as period of imprisonment and set aside the remaining portion of the sentence by enhancing the fine - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 amount reasonably and sought for allowing revision petition to that extent. 12. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State supports the impugned judgment. 13. Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara would further contend that there is a minimum punishment of six months for the aforesaid offences and therefore, the alternate submission cannot be accepted and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, seizure of 9,000 litres of blue kerosene from the custody of the accused persons is established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. 16. Admittedly, such huge quantity of the blue kerosene oil is not a freely available commodity in the market so as to implant the same for foisting the false case by the head of the raid party especially in the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 absence of any previous enmity or animosity nurtured by the head of the raid party with the accused is concerned. 17. Sample drawn from the seized kerosene establishes that it is the new kerosene meant for public distribution as per the chemical examination report. 18. There was no explanation whatsoever offered by the accused for the possession of 9,000 litres of blue kerosene which is meant for public distribution without pass, licence or any other document. 19. Therefore, order of conviction recorded by trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the aforesaid offences needs no interference, having regard to limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction. 20. This would take this Court to the next submission made on behalf of the accused/revision petitioner. 21. On careful reading of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, especially the proviso after Section 2A, this Court in a given case by recording the adequate reasons may order for lesser punishment than - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 the prescribed minimum punishment of six months for the proved offences 22. Section 7 of E.C. Act reads as under: “7. Penalties.―[(1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3,― (a) he shall be punishable,― (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of sub- section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 (b) any property in respect of which the order has been contravened shall be forfeited to the Government; (c) any package, covering or receptacle in which the property is found and any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the property shall, if the court so orders, be forfeited to the Government. (2) If any person to whom a direction is given under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 3 fails to comply with the direction, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months. (2A) If any person convicted of an offence under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub- section (1) or under sub-section (2) is again convicted of an offence under the same provision, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for the second and for every - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 subsequent offence for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.” 23. Taking note of the fact that accused is a first time offender and entire seized kerosene has been put into common pool for public distribution, except the sample and incident is an isolated incident, there is no complaint against the petitioner subsequent to the incident that occurred which is subject matter of this case, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to be payable in two equal instalments. First instalment on 15.05.2025 and another instalment on 15.06.2025 and by directing the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused by modifying the sentence of six months would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 24. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Rule 4 of Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order 1986 and Rule 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order 1993 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months is modified by directing the custody period already undergone by the accused as period of imprisonment and directing to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in two equal installments, one on 15.05.2025 and another on 15.06.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount as referred to supra would automatically result in restoration of the jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6227 CRL.RP No. 100163 of 2019 (iv) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV,AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 36