Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1724 (KAR)

Iranna v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-17

B.A.PATIL

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceeding in Crime No.313/2017 pending on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division) and JMFC., Hanagal for the offences punishable under Section 3 R/W Section 7 of Essentials Commodities Act, 1955. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent- State. 3. Facts leading to the case are that complainant has received credible information on 24.08.2017 at 1.00 p.m. stating that petitioner-accused has illegally stored the rice packets in his warehouse which belongs to public distribution system. Accused petitioner was the proprietor of the Parvati Trading Corporation and when the search was conducted in the warehouse of accused-petitioner, rice packets were found and they belong to public distribution System and they are seized by drawing the mahazar and a case came to be registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner accused submits that there is no allegation as against the petitioner-accused in the complaint and in the FIR. Petitioner is a licensed dealer of rice. He has nothing to do with the allegation made in this behalf. It is his further contention that the Police had no authority to investigate the case and file the charge sheet. It is his further contention that as per the Notification dated 10.06.2016, there is an amendment to the Karnataka Essential Commodities Order and as per Section 2(D) of Act, Sheristedar who has filed the complaint is not the authorized person to file complaint. It is his further contention that as per Section 19 of the Act, the Sheristedar is not having any authority to search and seize the Food Articles from the warehouse of the petitioner-accused and there is clear violation of provisions of law. It is his further contention that he got released the seized rice. He has also preferred an appeal against the said order. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and quash the proceedings. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that an application was came to be filed by the accused-petitioner for release of the seized articles and as per the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 02.11.2017, the seized articles have been released in favour of the petitioner-accused and the said order reached the finality. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that an application was came to be filed by the accused-petitioner for release of the seized articles and as per the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 02.11.2017, the seized articles have been released in favour of the petitioner-accused and the said order reached the finality. It is her further contention that though he was having a license but he is not having any license to store the rice which is meant for public usage. It is her further submission that raid has been conducted by the Sheristedar along with Tahasildar and even as per Section 18, Sheristedar is equallent to Food Inspector and he is having authority to search and seize and he can also file a complaint. It is her further contention that the said Sheristedar even on authority can also file the complaint. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The only issue which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is that Sheristedar is not having any authority to file the complaint and he is also not having any power to enter, search and seize the said articles. For the purpose of brevity, I quote the Rule 19 which reads as under: 19. Powers of Entry, Search, Seizure, etc. For the purpose of brevity, I quote the Rule 19 which reads as under: 19. Powers of Entry, Search, Seizure, etc. : (1) The Director of Food and Civil Supplies, the Joint Directors of Food and Civil Supplies, or the Tahsildar of a taluk, and the Authorized Authority or any other officer of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies not below the rank of a Food Inspector within their jurisdiction may with such assistance, if any, as he thinks fit and if he has reason to believe that there is or has been any contravention of the provisions of this order or with a view to securing compliance with this order or to satisfying himself that there is or has been any contravention of the order : (a) require the owner, occupier or any other person in charge of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to be committed, to produce any books, accounts or other documents showing transactions relating to such contraventions: (b) enter, inspect or break open and search any place or premises, vehicle or vessel in which he has reason to believe that any contravention of the provisions of this order or of the conditions of any authorization issued there under has been, is being or is about to be committed; (c) take or cause to be taken extracts from or copies of any documents showing transactions relating to such contraventions which are produced before him; (d) search, seize and remove books, accounts and other documents and stocks of essential commodity and the animals vehicles, vessels or other conveyance used in carrying the said essential commodities in contravention of the provisions of this order, or of the conditions of the authorization issued there under and thereafter take or authorize the taking of all measures necessary for securing the production of stocks, of essential commodity and the animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyance so seized, in a Court for their safe custody pending such production. (2) The provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall so far may be, apply to searches and seizures under this clause. 8. (2) The provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall so far may be, apply to searches and seizures under this clause. 8. On close reading of the said Rule, Additional Director and joint Director of Food, Civil supplies, Consumer affairs and Legal Metrology, the Tahasildar of a taluk, the authorized authority or any other officer of a Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer affairs not below the rank of Food Inspector within their jurisdiction with such assistance, they can have a power to enter search and seize. 9. On close reading of the complaint and on going through the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the material produced in this behalf shows that the Sheristedar is equivalent to Food Inspector and he is also authorized to search and seize. 10. Be that as it may. Even the contents of the complaint and other materials disclose the fact that along with the Tahasildar, the Sheristedar has gone and only at the advise of the Tahasildar he has filed the complaint. As per Rule 19, it also speaks Tahasildar or the authorized authority can also file the complaint and he is also having power to enter search and seize. When the complaint itself clearly disclose that the authority of the Tahasildar and Sheristedar jointly they have made search and seized. Then, under such circumstances, I feel that the contention which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused stands for any reason and that there are no good grounds to quash the petition. Petition is devoid of merits and the same is requires to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed.