RUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner who is accused No.3 in C.C. No.1037/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi (herienafter for brevity referred to as the 'trial Court') for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'EC Act') and 18(a) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, has preferred this petition seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him.

(2.) The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is the Deputy Tahsildar of Chikodi, based on a credible information that a truck bearing registration No.K.22/B-2769 was unauthorisedly transporting the rice meant for public distribution (PDS) from TAPCMS, Nippani towards Nidasoshi, he, joined by his team, followed the said truck on the Belagavi road and near Mangur Village, could able to stop the said truck on 07.11.2013 and on inspection, he noticed that the truck was carrying 300 bags of rice which rice was meant for the public distribution under PDS scheme. His enquiry with the driver and cleaner of the vehicle, who were found in the said vehicle, revealed that they had loaded the said commodity from KFCSC godown at APMC, Athani and they were proceeding towards Sankeshwar as directed by the person who got those goods loaded into the said lorry. They also produced a receipt said to have been issued by the said person, which shown, as though, it was a receipt issued by the Manager of the said godown and bearing an altered date as 06.10.2013 which could also have been read as 06.11.2013. Based upon the said complaint, a criminal case was registered in the respondent's station in Crime No.290/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections

(3.) and 7 of the EC Act. After investigation, the respondent-police filed charge-sheet not just against the driver and cleaner of the said lorry but also against accused Nos.3 and 4, among whom the present petitioner is accused No.3. Though, initially, accused No.4 was also the second petitioner in this petition, however, during the pendency of this petition, since his death was reported, case against him was treated as abated vide order of this Court dated 28.02.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that except the alleged voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, there are no other material to establish any connection or link between the alleged offence and the present petitioner. Merely because accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have named the present petitioner, at whose instance, the alleged goods are said to have been transported, by that itself, it cannot be held that there are materials to proceed against the present petitioner and subject him to face the trial. He submits that if the present petitioner is compelled to face the trial, it would lead to great hardship and it is a sheer abuse of process of law.