LALIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's counsel, learned AGA for respondent No. 1, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and also learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The petitioner by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sought for an order to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the complaint and FIR registered in Tadas Police Station in Crime No. 1/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') and further sought for an order to declare that the proceedings initiated under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and seizing the rice and truck is illegal and the said provisions are not applicable to the petitioner and further direction may be issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to indemnify the petitioner for the loss of the goodwill and registering the false case against the petitioner and also take appropriate action against the respondents for demanding illegal gratification and grant such other relief, as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner in the petition has contended that he is a businessman running proprietorship business under the name and style of "Preetam Traders" and said firm is registered under the APMC Act, bearing registration No. KT46883, for transportation of notified agriculture produce and firm is possessing GST certificate bearing registration No. 29BGPPJ3608F1Z8. The petitioner's firm is carrying on the business of trading of rice and also stocks rice. The petitioner obtained permit from the APMC and he was transporting the rice in a Truck bearing reg. No. RJ-19/GE-0423 to Sri Balaji Trading Co. Hubballi as per the permit. The PSI, Tadas Police Station, registered the case in Crime No. 1/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act against the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint filed by 2nd respondent, seized the rice and Truck belonging to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was transporting the PDS rice illegally.