Police Lacked Jurisdiction Under Essential Commodities Act for PDS Goods Seizure

Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

In a significant ruling concerning the enforcement of the Essential Commodities Act, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in the case of Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka. The High Court’s decision centered on the lack of jurisdiction of police officers to conduct search and seizure operations under the specific provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. This judgment reinforces the principle that only designated authorities are empowered to act in such matters, thus highlighting procedural adherence in legal enforcement.

The case originated from an incident on October 4, 2024, when the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) of Bagalkote CEN Police received intelligence regarding the alleged illegal transportation of rice, cooking oil, milk, and ragi powder earmarked for the public distribution system (PDS). Acting on this information, the PSI intercepted a vehicle and seized a substantial quantity of these commodities, including 140 bags of milk powder, 13 bags of ragi powder, 5 boxes of cooking oil, and 4 bags of ration control rice. Subsequently, a suo moto case was registered in Crime No. 34/2024 for alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 314, 316(1)(2)(3), and 318(1)(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners, who were implicated in this case, approached the High Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings, arguing that the police action was beyond their legal authority.

The core of the petitioners’ argument, presented by their counsel Sri. Rohit N. Latur, was that the enforcement mechanism for the Essential Commodities Act, particularly in Karnataka, is governed by specific provisions. Counsel referred to Paragraph 19 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. This provision explicitly outlines the “Powers of Entry, Search, Seizure, etc.,” vesting such authority primarily with officers of the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, not below the rank of a Food Inspector, or other authorized authorities like the Director of Food and Civil Supplies or Tahsildars. The comprehensive nature of this paragraph details how these authorized officers can require production of documents, enter and search premises or vehicles, take extracts, and seize commodities along with the conveyances used for their illegal transport. The counsel contended that since the police are not among the authorities specified in this order, their entire action, including the search and seizure of the foodgrains, was illegal and without jurisdiction. This procedural flaw, it was argued, rendered the entire criminal proceedings liable to be quashed.

Crucially, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), Sri. Jairam Siddi, representing the State, conceded this point. The HCGP acknowledged that the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, indeed prescribes specific authorities authorized to carry out search and seizure operations under the Essential Commodities Act. This concession significantly strengthened the petitioners’ position, as it confirmed that the police seizure was, in fact, without proper authority.

The High Court’s decision was also heavily influenced by several judicial precedents set by its own Co-ordinate Benches. The petitioners’ counsel cited multiple previous rulings, including Criminal Petition No. 102201/2019 (disposed of on February 2, 2022), Criminal Petition No. 4233/2016 (disposed of on August 18, 2016), Criminal Petition No. 101518/2017 (disposed of on February 6, 2019), and Criminal Petition No. 3790/2012 c/w Criminal Petition No. 3708/2012 (disposed of on July 6, 2015). A detailed reference was made to the judgment in Criminal Petition No. 4233/2016, where the Court had previously held that the powers to enforce the Essential Commodities Act and prevent illegal transactions of foodgrains are vested exclusively in officers authorized by the State Government, and these powers cannot be exercised by the police. The court in that instance had clearly stated that “the entire action of the police authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction.” This consistent line of judicial reasoning underscores the importance of adherence to statutory provisions regarding designated authorities for specific enforcement actions.

Another significant precedent cited was Criminal Petition No. 101580/2017. In this case, the High Court had quashed proceedings where food grains were seized, and a report later confirmed that the seized material was not PDS rice samples. The court found that continuing such proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a miscarriage of justice, making it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. While Siddappa primarily focused on jurisdiction, the reference to Criminal Petition No. 101580/2017 highlights the broader judicial inclination to intervene and prevent unnecessary legal processes when fundamental flaws or lack of evidence exist.

In its final order, the Karnataka High Court explicitly stated that in light of the aforementioned precedents and the concession by the State’s counsel, the criminal petition was allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 119/2025, pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkote, and arising out of Crime No. 34/2024, were consequently quashed against the petitioners. This judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to ensure that they operate within the bounds of their statutory powers, particularly when dealing with specialized legislation such as the Essential Commodities Act, which designates specific authorities for its enforcement. The ruling reinforces the sanctity of procedural law and the protection of citizens from actions taken without proper jurisdiction.

Adv Rohit Latur represented the Appellant

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Heard Sri.Rohit N. Latur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.119/2025 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkote for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 314, 316(1)(2)(3), 318(1)(2)(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 04.10.2024, the PSI, Bagalkote CEN Police received a credible information about transportation of rice, cooking oil, milk and ragi powder illegally, which was meant for public distribution system, thus he went to spot and he intercepted the same and seized 140 bags of milk powder containing 25 milk packets in each bag, 13 bags of ragi powders weighing 25 kg each bag, 5 boxes of cooking oil, 4 bags of ration control rice weighing 50 kgs each bag. Thus, he registered suo moto case in Crime No.34/2024 for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception of the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the subject criminal petition stands covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.102201/2019 disposed of on 02.02.2022, Criminal Petition No.4233/2016 disposed of on 18.08.2016, Criminal Petition No.101518/2017 disposed of on 06.02.2019 and Criminal Petition No.3790/2012 c/w Criminal Petition No.3708/2012 disposed of on 06.07.2015 which has been followed by several other Benches. This Court in Criminal Petition No.4233/2016 has held as follows:

“3. As on 16.5.2016 a case has been registered in Crime No.230/2016 by the Sub- Inspector, Challakere Police Station, within the jurisdiction of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere and therefore the petitioners are before this Court.

4. The learned counsel Sri S.P.Kulkarni would contend that insofar as enforcement of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, there are specific provisions under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, which are applicable to the present case on hand. Paragraph 19 thereof provides as follows:

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 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 orof 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 clause.”

5. The learned counsel would therefore contend that from the tenor of the above stated Section, the mechanism for regulating and enforcing the Essential Commodities Act and the prevention of any such illegal transaction or sale of foodgrains is under the power and control of officers authorized by the State Government and the said powers cannot be enforced or exercised by police, as in the present case on hand the entire action of the police authorities is illegal and without jurisdiction and the seizure of the foodgrains which are now kept in the open space are susceptible and certainly would cause loss to the petitioners and therefore would submit on the sole ground that the seizure search and seizure of foodgrains has been made illegal and without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings ought to be quashed and the goods be released in favour of the petitioners.

6. The learned State Public Prosecutor would concede that the said regularization namely The Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 does prescribe the Authority or the Officers who could carry out search and seizure of foodgrains to which the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and other alike provisions would apply and that the seizure by the police was without authority cannot be the glaring circumstance.”

and in the Criminal Petition No.101580/2017 this Court has held as follows:

“Having heard the argument of both the sides, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the raid was conducted and the rice was seized at the instance of the persons who are engaged in loading the good grains to the lorry on 06.06.2017 and all these petitioners claims that they are the owner of the godown, driver of the vehicle and also the owner of the rice and the petitioners in support of their contention that they have purchased the rice from the APMC they have relied upon the receipt issued by the APMC which is annexed along with this petition and the same is dated 5.6.2017 apart from that the report which has been received recently confirms that the food grains which has been seized is not the PDS rice samples and when such being the case, I am of the opinion that continuing of proceedings initiated against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process and it amounts to miscarriage of justice and hence it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.”

5. In the light of the orders passed by this Court supra, the following:

ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

ii. The Proceedings in C.C. No.119/2025 pending on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkote arising out of Crime No.34/2024 stands quashed against the petitioners.