KAIRALI ENTERPRISES, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.E. PRAVEES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of an order dated 12.3.2010, the matter is referred to Division Bench for decision. In the present case, whether the action of the authorities of the Respondent - State following the provisions of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution Control) Order, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as '1992 order' for short) is repugnant and therefore contravenes the provisions of Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as '2001 Order' for short) of the Central Government has to be seen.

(2.) THE brief facts that lead to referring the matters to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge are as under: On 15.10.2009 at about 10 a.m. near Metikurke forest on N.H -4 within the jurisdiction of Chitradurga district, the Police of Hiriyur seized 350 bags of rice alongwith two lorries bearing Registration Nos. KA -12 -A -0479 and KL -13 -R -994. FIR came to be lodged by the concerned Circle Inspector of Police, Hiriyur and accordingly Crime No. 435/2009 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ('Act' for short) and so also Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, Subsequent to the seizure, the authorities concerned followed up the matter by appropriate procedure contemplated under the Act. The Petitioners - owners filed an application for release of the lorries before the Deputy Commissioner on 11.11.2009. In application, the Petitioners had also sought for release of 350 bags of rice. After investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed and the matter is pending in C.C. No. 756/2009 for trial of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and also Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. After filing of the charge sheet, the validity of the charge sheet also came to be questioned in Criminal Petition No. 6311/2009 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the matter came to be admitted on 9.12.2009.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge after referring to the procedure adopted by the concerned Police under 1992 Order, the Petitioners contended that it contravenes the provisions of 2001 Order as the same was not at all followed by the authorities for the search and seizure and therefore their action is illegal ab initio. In that context, several reported and unreported Judgments came to be relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners to contend that Police have no jurisdiction to search and seize the lorries which were transporting rice as stated above.