(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 482 (U/Sec.528 of BNS) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, praying to, allow the present criminal petition and also quash the entire proceeding in CC No.1516/2025 filed before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC-II Bidar, and Crime No.226/2023 registered at Gandhigunj Police Station, Bidar. against petitioners for the offence punishable u/S. Essential Commodities Act 1955 U/Sec.3 and 7 IPC 1860 U/S. 149 IPC, in the interest of justice and equity.)

CAV Judgment

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner (the accused No. 4) under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for an order to allow the petition and quash the entire proceedings of the case in C.C.No.1516/2025, pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar arising out of Crime No.226/2023 of the respondent No.1 Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act), and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The respondent No.1 Police registered the case against the petitioner and others based on the complaint of the respondent No.2 Neelamma, Assistant Director of the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Bidar for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act, 1955 and Sections 420 and 149 of the IPC.

3. The case alleged against the petitioners and the other accused is that the complainant, the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bidar, received information on 26.12.2023 at about 12:15 p.m. from the Police Inspector of the respondent Police Station that rice belonging to the Public Distribution Department was being illegally stocked in a godown behind Noor College in Halagatti, Bidar City. Accordingly, the complainant, along with the police, visited the spot. At about 1:45 p.m., when they arrived at the spot, they found accused No.1 to 3 illegally stocking rice belonging to the Public Distribution Department in about 50 kg bags. Upon enquiry, the accused No.1 to 3 revealed their names and addresses and also stated that they were collecting the rice from the other accused persons, and they transported it in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25-C-7138, and went to the godown to illegally stock the rice there. Based on the statements of the accused No.1 to 3, the petitioner has been shown as accused No.4, and other persons have been shown as accused No.5 to 9, while the owner of the godown is shown as accused No.10.

4. After completion of the investigation, the respondent No.1 Police filed a charge sheet against 10 accused persons, including the petitioner, who is shown as the accused No.4.

5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the complainant misguided the respondent Police by twisting the actual facts and cooked up a story that rice bags meant for the Public Distribution System were being transported. The petitioner had nothing to do with the transportation of ration rice illegally and he is not at all concerned with the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet. It is an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner. The respondent Police did not furnish any documents to show the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. Furthermore, in the absence of any material to show that the rice was meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System, the cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner is without any substance.

6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has discharged the accused persons as per the order dated 13.07.2023 in Crl.P.No.200807/2023 and the order dated 30.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.201018/2024. Further, the similar case registered against the petitioner was quashed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.200504/2024 and Crl.P.No.200109/2024.

7. The petitioner is not authorized dealer and he is not shown to have been engaged in the purchase or transportation of food grains which were issued to an authorized dealer for distribution under the Public Distribution System. No essential ingredients for the offence punishable under the EC Act are made out against the petitioner, and no findings have been recorded by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner in that regard. Therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in the concerned case is liable to be quashed.

8. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, except the statement of accused No.1 to 3 given before the respondent, there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the respondent police to show that there is any material against the petitioner to prove that he committed any offence in contravention of Section 3 of EC Act and thereby committed any offence punishable under Section 7 of the EC Act.

9. Even during the investigation, no material was collected by the Investigating Officer to connect the petitioner to the alleged incident or to the offence charged against him in the charge sheet. There is no independent witness examined by the Investigating Officer to show that the seized rice is in any way connected to the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no basis for the statement of accused No.1 to 3 that they purchased rice from the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer has not made any investigation to show that the petitioner is having any godown and he collected rice illegally and stocked rice which is for distribution in Public Distribution System.

10. It is a well-settled principle of law that no case can be made out against the petitioner solely on the basis of the statement of co-accused. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed petitions in similar cases and quashed the proceedings against the concerned accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act. The followings are the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the similar cases:

          1) The order dated 13.07.2023 in Crl.P.No.200807/2023 (Md. Feroz S/o Jani Miyan Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

          2) The order dated 30.08.2024 in Crl.P.No.201018/2024 (Sudhakar S/o Veershetty Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

          3) The order dated 04.09.2024 in Crl.P.No.200504/2024 (Abdul Nizam S/o Abdul Jabbar Budhera Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

          4) The order dated 19.09.2024 in Crl.P.No.200109/2024 (Moinuddin S/o Mehboobsab Yenneguri Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

          5) The order dated 13.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.201182/2024 (Ramvani Hardikkumar Girishbhai Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

          6) The order dated 24.01.2025 in Crl.P.No.201640/2024 (Twinkal Dipakbhai Ramvani and Ors., Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors), and

          7) The order dated 03.09.2025 in Crl.P.No.200911/2025 (Raju @ Ayyappa Narendra Rathod Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors).

11. In the above referred cases, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that wherever the petitions were filed by the accused persons against whom cases were registered based on the complaint of co-accused, without there being any material collected during the investigation, the cases including those for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act are quashed. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, and in view of the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned petitions, it is clear that the respondent police have failed to make out any ground to show that there is any material against the petitioner for the alleged offence. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

12. When there is no material collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner, continuance of the case for trial would be a futile exercise and it would result in an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against him as sought for in the petition, and accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

          i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

          ii. Consequently, the proceedings in the case in C.C.No.1516/2025 of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Bidar arising out of the case in Crime No.226/2023 of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed.