- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 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. 200565 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANDPASHA S/O BASHU MIYAN, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NADEPALLI TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI- 585 222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AMEERAHAMAJA ABDULKADAR GUNNAPURA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MUDHOL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY, THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585 102. 2. SRI NITIN S/O GANGAPPA FOOD INSPECTOR TAHASIL OFFICE SEDAM-585 222, DIST. KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND ALSO QUASH THE FIR IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.3/2025, WHICH WAS REGISTERED AT MUDHOL POLICE STATION, CHINCHOLI AGAINST PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 6 AND 7 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, AND THE SAID CASE IS TRIALED IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SR. DIVISION SEDAM. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.3/2023 of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant had lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating the he had received an information from the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies stating that the said officer had received an information that the PDS rice was kept/stored in the godown and directed the complainant to proceed in the spot and conduct investigation. On receiving the said information and also pursuant to the oral direction of the officer, the complainant went to the spot, conducted search and seizure. They found that the accused, namely, Chand Pasha stated to be the owner of the mill had confessed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 of 2025 that, he had stored rice and jowar. However, he did not produce relevant documents for having stored the said food grains. Therefore, a case came to be registered against the petitioner for not producing the documents. The Investigation is under progress. 3. Heard Sri.Ameerahamaja Abdulkadar Gunnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the owner of the mill had purchased rice and jowar and stored the said items in the godown as per the provision. However, the Investigating Officer did not consider the documents produced by the petitioner and proceeded against him in order to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the proceedings filed against him to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State vehemently opposed the submissions and he further submitted that the PDS rice and jowar was stored illegally by the petitioner in the rice mill without having any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 of 2025 documents. In fact, the notice was issued to the petitioner to produce the documents to substantiate that he had stored the items legally with valid documents. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced those documents before the Court seeking relief on the said documents. Those documents and its authenticity has to be decided in the trial. Mere production of the documents, is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to reject the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and documents, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill. He is stated to have stored rice and jowar illegally without having any documents for the said storage. If the petitioner had those documents at the initial stage, he would have produced those documents at the time when the notice was issued to him by the competent authority. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2211 CRL.P No. 200565 of 2025 7. Be that as it may, now at this stage, this Court is not empowered to verify those documents as it is not proper to consider the documents produced by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case to grant the relief as prayed for. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is rejected. ii) The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents before the respondent police. iii) The respondent police after verifying its authenticity to pass suitable order or file suitable report in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:PK