SRI. SHREENIVAS C. S. v. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA N.

SRI. SHREENIVAS C. S. AGED 60 YEARS OWNER OF M/S PRAGATHI ORGANICS, NO. 103/3, MELEKOTE CROSS, CHOWGONDAHALLI, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: SMT. SUSHEELAMMA N. FERTILIZER INSPECTOR AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203 (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9725 CRL.P No. 17396 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.3169/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DODDABALLAPURA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Shivashankar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers: "i) ii) the proceedings Quash in C.C.No.3169/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Doddaballapura. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs of the proceedings, in the interest of justice."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9725 CRL.P No. 17396 of 2025 HC-KAR M/S UMARSAB Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA1, the Co- ordinate Bench has held as follows: "1. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent/State.

2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clauses 3 and 18 (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “PDS Control Order”). the Karnataka Essential Commodities information that rice meant

3. The case of the prosecution is that, upon receiving credible distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) was stored in a godown without a permit, a raid was conducted. During the search, it was discovered that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of rice meant for PDS distribution.

4. Admittedly, the prosecution has not produced any material to substantiate that the seized rice was meant for PDS distribution. Furthermore, no warrant was obtained from the jurisdictional Magistrate, as mandated under Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order. The issue involved in this petition has been examined by this Court in Crl.P.No.200775/2023 and connected petitions. Vide order dated 5.7.2023, this Court made the following observations:

5. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted in the public interest to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain essential commodities.

6. Section 3 of the Act empowers the government to control the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities.

7. Section 7 provides penalties for individuals who 1 CRL.P.NO.100231/2025 Disposed on 22.01.2025 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9725 CRL.P No. 17396 of 2025 HC-KAR contravene orders issued under Section 3 of the Act.

8. Section 10A specifies that offences under the Act are cognizable in nature.

9. Section 11 deals with the cognizance of offences and stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act except on a written report of the facts constituting the offence, filed either by a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code or by any person aggrieved or a recognized consumer association, whether or not the aggrieved person is a member of the association.

10. Simply put, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under this Act only upon receiving a written report of the facts from a public servant or a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by the officer in charge of the police station after investigation. In the instant case, the Food Inspector, who is the Authorized Officer under the PDS Control Orders of 1992 and 2016, conducted the search and seizure of food grains/rice allegedly meant for PDS distribution.

11. The State Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, framed the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2016.

12. Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order, 2016, deals with the powers of entry, search, and seizure. Under this provision, an Authorized Officer, if he has reason to believe that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the order or any related authorization, or if he seeks to secure compliance with the order or gather information related to such contravention, may require the owner, occupier, or person in charge of any premises, vehicle, or vessel to cooperate with the search.

13. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order, 2016, specifies that the provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure shall, as far - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9725 CRL.P No. 17396 of 2025 HC-KAR as practicable, apply to searches and seizures conducted under this provision. reason

14. A conjoint reading of Section 10A of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order, 2016, indicates that if the Food Inspector there has been a contravention of the provisions of the PDS Control Order, he can conduct a search and seizure of the vehicle or premises where the food grains meant for unauthorized PDS distribution are allegedly stored or transported. to believe

15. Although offences under the Essential Commodities Act are cognizable, Clause 19 of the PDS Control Order, 2016, empowers the Authorized Officer to conduct a search and seizure to satisfy himself that there has been a contravention of the order. There is no requirement for the Authorized Officer to register an FIR before conducting such searches and seizures.

16. Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. specifies that when any place liable to search or inspection is closed, the officer executing the warrant must produce it and demand entry. The person in charge of such premises is required to provide ingress and reasonable facilities for the search.

17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court W.P.No.36438-439/2014 and W.P.No.36542/2014 (GM- EC) disposed of on 03.12.2014, at Para No.14, has held as under: "14. In the instant case, petitioners are not authorized dealers. They are not shown to be engaged in purchase, storage or sale of food grains which were issued to the authorized for distribution under the public dealer distribution system. Therefore, essential ingredient explicitly stated under Clause 18 (a) i.e., the goods / commodities must have been issued to the authorized dealer under the public distribution system is missing. No finding is recorded by the 1st respondent in this regard. In fact, there is no material whatsoever to indicate this aspect. Therefore, - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9725 CRL.P No. 17396 of 2025 HC-KAR as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, unless there is material to show that the commodities were issued to an authorized dealer for distribution under the public distribution system or that a person other than the authorized dealer had sought to purchase or sell or store or offer for sale food grains meant for distribution under public distribution system through the price depots, prohibition contained under Clause 18 (a) of the Control Order would not be attracted. In the absence of such findings such action will not attract penal measure including seizure or forfeiture."

18. Therefore, search has been conducted without obtaining search warrant as specified under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate that the rice which was seized was meant for distribution under PDS, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.

19. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.1289/2024 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Hubballi, insofar as petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed."

4. In the light of the issue standing covered by judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53