B. PANDURANGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 80/2022 of Toranagallu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 3, 6(a) And 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 And Ss. 4, 8, 3(2)(I), 6 Of Essential Commodities (Storage Accounts Maintaining Value Notification) Order 1981 And Ss. 3, 4, 12, 18 And 19 of Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Public Control Order 2016.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 27/5/2012 at about 7.00 a.m., the complainant being food inspector received information from the Tahsildar of Sandur Taluk about transportation of PDS rice, immediately he intimated to his higher authorities. Afterwards, as per their direction he went to Toranagallu Police Station, intimated the same to A.S.I., thereafter accompanied with his staff and panchas went behind Karnataka Bank situated near Toranagallu Railway Station. Afterwards, they noticed lorry bearing registration No. KA-34/B-8721 loaded with rice bags, on seeing them, the persons who were present at the spot ran away by leaving the lorry there itself. On verification of the said lorry they found 499 plastic bags of 50 k.g. each Public Distribution Rice. The complainant seized the said rice bags under panchanama and took one k.g. of rice as sample, thereafter, gave the complaint against the driver and owner of the vehicle. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 80/2022 of Toranagallu Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The name of the petitioner is shown as the accused and lorry owner in the FIR and after apprehension of his arrest the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 579/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by order dtd. 11/7/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.