- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 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. 200564 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MACHENDRA @ MACHENDRANATH S/O DHULAPPA JAMADAR, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KASHAMPUR, TQ. AURAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 226. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AMEERAHAMAJA ABDULKADAR GUNNAPURA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, BASAVAKALYAN TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY, THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI–585 102. 2. RAVI SURYAVANSHI FOOD INSPECTOR TAHASIL OFFICE, BASAVAKALYAN-585 327, DIST. BIDAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN,HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITIONER AND ALSO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED FIR IN CRIME NO.01/2020 FILED AT BASAVAKALYAN TOWN POLICE STATION, BIDAR DIST. AND CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CC NO.48/2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC BASAVAKALYAN, AGAINST PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 3 AND 7 E.C. ACT. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 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) 1. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C No.48/2021 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan arising out of Crime No.1/2020 of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint has been lodged by respondent No.2, who was working as Food Inspector stating that, on 03.01.2020, one person was transporting PDS rice towards Gujarat in his Tata lorry bearing No.GJ 36-V-8766 on NH 65. Having received the said information, a raid was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. On verification of the said lorry, they found that it was filled with rice bags. When they enquired about the permit to transport the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 rice, he produced the documents and stated that the rice was loaded through Sri Balaji Traders, Mothi Bazar, Gandhi Ganz, Bidar. Suspecting the validity of the said documents, they further conducted the inspection of the said lorry and found that there were 700 packets of rice loaded in the said lorry. The value of the said rice was Rs.10,50,000/-. Immediately, they seized the said lorry along with the load of rice and registered a case against the driver. Subsequently, on the basis of the statement of accused No.1, the accused No.2 has been implicated in this case. After conducting the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the respondent police. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused No.2 has challenged the said charge sheet. 3. Heard Sri.Ameerahamaja Abdulkadar Gunnapura, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner was not there at the spot. In fact, the alleged search and seizure had taken place near the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 Dhaba, where it is alleged that accused No.1 had parked the said lorry and he was having dinner. The petitioner herein had been implicated in this case on the basis of the voluntary statement made by accused No.1. In fact, the documents produced before the Food Inspector at the time of conducting the search and seizure was not considered properly. The accused No.1 had valid licence to drop out the rice and it was in accordance with law. However, in order to implicate them in the false case, they proceeded further to seize the lorry along with the loaded rice. 5. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner is shown as an authorized dealer, no documents were submitted or collected to substantiate that he was dealing with the business of food grains. In fact, the prosecution has not placed any material to show that the food grains seized from the possession of the petitioner is meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. In the absence of the said fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed the offences as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 stated supra. Therefore, the entire proceedings may be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State vehemently submitted that, though the documents produced at the time of conducting the inspection, the said documents were created for the purpose of transporting PDS rice from Karnataka to Gujarat. The petitioner herein had collected PDS rice illegally and it was loaded from his godown. Therefore, the statement of the officer assumes greater significance against the petitioner. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that, the accused No.1 was carrying load of rice in his lorry towards Gujarat. On receiving the credible information, the officer intercepted the lorry, arrested accused No.1 and enquired about the rice. Though, it is stated that he had produced certain documents to demonstrate that it was being transported - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 legally, the fact remains that, the officers have not convinced about the said document and register a case. Upon his statement, the present petitioner has been implicated in this case as he had stored the PDS rice in his godown and the same was loaded from his godown to the said lorry. 8. Be that as it may, though the statement of accused No.1 would indicate that the present petitioner being a proprietor of Amma Enterprises and he has instructed the persons to load the rice to the lorry, the fact remains that, none of the independent witnesses would say that the rice was loaded to the lorry from the shop of the present petitioner. Merely because, they conducted mahazar of the place alleged to have stored the said PDS rice, it would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner had stored the rice in the said godown. Moreover, the Investigating Officer has failed to substantiate that, it is the PDS rice which was supposed to be distributed to the beneficiaries. Therefore, under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to ask the petitioner to face the trial. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2212 CRL.P No. 200564 of 2025 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings in C.C No.48/2021 arising out of Crime No.1/2020 of the respondent police, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavakalyan, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:PK