GURAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA BIJAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the code for short). It is directedagainst the order dated November 9, 1988, made by the special judge (the sessions judge), bijapur, in special case No. 3/86 on his file.

(2.) the record of the petition andthe record and proceedings in special case No. 3/86 sent for from the special court are perused and examined. The learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned state public prosecutor for the respondent - state are heard.

(3.) the facts of the case, materialto dispose of the present petition, ate these : gurappa hanamantappa bijapur (petitionor No. 1) is a trader at bagalkot irappa vinjpaxappa sindagi (petitioner No. 2) was working at the material time as an employee, in the shop of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is given a licence as a wholesale dealer under the Provisions of the Karnataka edible oil dealers licensing Order, 1977 (the order for short) made by the government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) (the act for short read with the pulses, edible oil-seeds and edible oils (storage control) Order, 1977 (order No. S .o. 780 (e), dated 21st november, 1977 of the government of India in ministry of civil supplies and cooperation). The licence granted to petitioner No. 1 is in form b of the Order, as required by clause 4(2) of the order. On 7-8985, c b. Kyathan, the sub inspector of police (law and order), town police station, bagalkot, received credible information that in the shop of petitioner no 1, run under the name and style of "ganesh stores'' situated at old market, daida tins had been stored unauihorisedly. With a view to verify the information, he secured two panchas and accompanied by them and the members of his staff. He proceeded to ganesh stores. Both the petitioners were present. The sub-inspector of police noticed oil-tins, rava, atta, sugar, etc, being stocked in the shop. On being asked, whether there was any licence, petitioner No. 1 produced the licence. The stock book was also produced. The entry relating to dalda, made on 7- 8-1985, indicated that the quantity of dalda stored in the shop was 14 tins. On physical verification of the dalda tins found in the shop, the sub-inspector noticed 69 tins. When questioned with regard to the excess tins of dalda found in the shop, the petitioners did not produce any books to account for the excass stock. The sub inspector found the actual stock of other items agreeing with the respective entries made in the stock-book. Having noticed that the petitioners had contravened the Provisions con tained in the Order, he seized the licence, the stock book and the entire quantity of dalda stored in tins under a panchanama. He returned to the police station at about 9 30 p.m. lodged a complaint on behalf of the state, registered a case in crime No. 134/85 for contravention of the Provisions contained in the order read with sections 3 and 7 of the Act, issued f.i.r. and tock-up investigation. He visited the shop of petitioner No. 1 on 7 8-1985 at about 5 p.m. and was there till 9-30 p.m. for purposes of inspection, verification and to complete the seizure proceedings. On completion of investigation, the sub inspector of police forwarded both the petitioners with his final report. The learned special judge took the charge-sheet on his file in special case no.3/86. He took cognizance of the contravention (the offence for short) alleged against the petitioners on 19-3-1986 and directed summons, making the same returnable by 23-41986 petitioners nos 1 and 2, in response to the summons, entered appearance.