MR. NARASIMHEGOWDA K M vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13990 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NARASIMHEGOWDA K M
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 21/2/1
ST RD
1 MAIN, 3 CROSS
SRI KANTESHWARA NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 086
ALSO WORKING AS WAREHOUSE MANAGER,
VIJAYNAGARA-2, KFCNC,
NEAR GOVARDHANA THEATER, RMC YARD,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU CITY - 560022
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN.V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY R M C YARD P S
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001
2. SRI DEVARAJU T S
S/O SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
FOOD INSPECTOR
WEST RANGE 2
RAJAJINAGAR
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
BANGALORE 560 010
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR
IN CR.NO.170/2025 LODGED BY RMC YARD P.S ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE III ADDL.CJM, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE O/P/U/S 3
AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, SEC.13(2) OF THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND SEC.316(5) OF THE
BNS, 2023 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Allow this petition and quash the FIR in
Cr.No.170/2025 lodged by RMC yard P.S on the file of
the court of the III Addl.CJM, Bengaluru City for the
o/p/u/s 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act 1955,
sec.13(2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act 1988
and sec.316(5) of the Bns, 2023.
b) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.
2. Respondent No.2, the Food Inspector, lodged a
complaint on 17.09.2025 alleging that, at about
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
10.30 a.m. on that day, during an inspection of the
KFCNC Wholesale Shop, Vijayanagara-2, situated
adjacent to Yeshwanthpur RMC Yard, a lorry bearing
registration No. KA-01-AB-0798 was found being
loaded with ration rice intended for distribution
through Fair Price Shops.
3. Upon inspection of the vehicle, it was found to
contain 280 bags of ration rice. Out of the said
quantity, 100 bags were covered under Bill No.2185
and another 100 bags were covered under Bill
No.2186. The remaining bags were not supported by
any corresponding bill at the time of inspection.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently
produced another bill bearing No.2190 in respect of
the remaining quantity. Upon verification, it was
found that Bill No.2185 had been generated at 10.08
a.m. and Bill No.2186 at 10.13 a.m., whereas the
third bill had been generated only at 10.47 a.m. The
discrepancy in the timing of the bills, particularly the
generation of the third bill after the inspection had
commenced, gave rise to suspicion regarding the
manner in which the ration stock was being
dispatched.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the matter
was brought to the notice of the Joint Director, State
Vigilance Department, and a complaint came to be
lodged alleging violations of Sections 3 and 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section
316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is
challenging the registration of the aforesaid crime
that the petitioner is before this Court.
6. The submission of Sri. Chetan V., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, is that the loading of
rice and generation of the corresponding bills take
place simultaneously. The server maintained by the
Food Department is stated to be frequently
malfunctioning and hanging, resulting in delays in
entering the particulars and generating the
corresponding bills.
7. It is submitted that the discrepancy in the timing of
the bills is attributable to the malfunctioning of the
server and cannot be construed as an attempt to
divert ration rice or misappropriate Government
stock.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the rice had not
left the premises of the wholesale godown and was
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
still within the compound when the inspection was
conducted. Therefore, there was no actual
transportation or removal of the ration stock from
the premises so as to attract the provisions invoked
in the FIR.
9. It is also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have
obtained interim protection in separate proceedings
on similar grounds and, therefore, the petitioner is
also entitled to similar relief.
10. Heard Sri. Chetan V., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Ranjith Kumar N., learned HCGP
appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the papers.
11. The petitioner is admittedly the Manager in charge of
the activities carried on in the wholesale godown.
The fact that 280 bags of ration rice were found
loaded in the lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-
AB-0798 is not in dispute.
12. The material placed before this Court indicates that,
out of the said 280 bags, 100 bags were covered
under Bill No.2185, generated at 10.08 a.m., and
another 100 bags were covered under Bill No.2186,
generated at 10.13 a.m. Thus, 200 bags were
supported by the aforesaid two bills.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
13. However, the remaining 80 bags, which had also
been loaded into the vehicle, were not supported by
any bill at the time of inspection conducted at 10.30
a.m.
14. What is significant is that the third bill, bearing
No.2190, was generated only at 10.47 a.m., after
the inspection had commenced. The said bill covered
another 100 bags, which included the 80 bags
already loaded into the vehicle and a further 20 bags
proposed to be loaded.
15. Thus, the third bill came to be generated after the
inspection had commenced and after the discrepancy
in the loading of the ration stock had been noticed by
the inspecting officials.
16. The sequence of events assumes considerable
significance. The petitioner, who was in charge of the
activities of the godown, was required to ensure that
the movement and dispatch of the ration stock were
duly supported by the prescribed documentation. The
fact that 80 bags had already been loaded without
any corresponding bill and that a bill covering those
bags came to be generated only after the inspection
had commenced cannot be brushed aside as an
ordinary discrepancy in the billing process.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
17. The explanation offered by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the server maintained by the
Food Department was malfunctioning and that the
delay in generating the third bill was attributable to
such technical difficulties.
18. However, the said explanation is a matter which
requires investigation. The functioning of the server,
the electronic entries made in respect of the stock,
the time at which the particulars were entered, the
actual time of generation of the bills and the
circumstances in which the third bill came to be
generated after the inspection commenced are all
matters which can be ascertained by examining the
relevant electronic records and server logs.
19. At this stage, this Court cannot accept the
explanation of server malfunction as an established
fact merely on the basis of the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner. Whether the delay was
genuinely attributable to a technical malfunction or
whether the third bill was generated subsequently to
account for ration stock which had already been
loaded into the vehicle is a matter requiring
investigation.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
20. Insofar as the offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are concerned,
Section 3 empowers the Government to regulate or
prohibit the production, supply and distribution of
essential commodities, including foodgrains, by
issuing appropriate orders in the interests of
maintaining supplies and securing their equitable
distribution.
21. Section 7 provides for punishment where any person
contravenes an order made under Section 3 of the
Act. Further, Section 8 of the said Act provides that a
person who attempts to contravene an order made
under Section 3 shall also be deemed to have
contravened such order.
22. In the present case, the allegation is that ration rice
intended for distribution through Fair Price Shops
was being loaded into a vehicle without the
corresponding supporting documentation for the
entire quantity. The timing of the bills, particularly
the generation of the third bill after the inspection
had commenced, raises a prima facie question as to
whether the stock was being removed or diverted in
violation of the applicable orders governing the
distribution of essential commodities.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
23. The contention that the rice had not actually left the
premises when the inspection was conducted would
not, by itself, be sufficient to quash the proceedings.
24. The allegation is not merely that the rice was present
within the premises or that the bills had been
generated belatedly. The specific allegation is that 80
bags of ration rice had already been loaded into the
lorry without any corresponding bill and that a third
bill covering the said quantity was generated only
after the inspection had commenced.
25. Whether such loading constituted an unauthorised
movement or an attempt to divert the ration stock,
and whether the circumstances attract the provisions
of the applicable control order read with Sections 7
and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, are matters
which require investigation. The absence of
completed transportation beyond the premises
cannot, by itself, defeat an allegation which also
requires examination from the perspective of an
attempt to contravene the applicable order.
26. Insofar as Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 is concerned, the said provision deals
with criminal breach of trust by a person entrusted
with property or dominion over property in the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
capacity of a public servant or in the course of
business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker,
attorney or agent.
27. In the present case, the petitioner is stated to be the
Manager in charge of the entire activities of the
wholesale godown. The ration stock was entrusted to
the establishment for regulated distribution and the
petitioner was responsible for the activities relating
to its handling and dispatch.
28. The allegation that ration rice entrusted for
distribution through the public distribution system
was being loaded into a vehicle without supporting
documentation, and that the supporting bill in
respect of the balance quantity was generated only
after the inspection commenced, requires
examination with reference to the petitioner's
authority over the stock, the nature of the
entrustment, the applicable conditions governing its
movement and the circumstances surrounding the
alleged unauthorised dispatch.
29. Whether the petitioner was entrusted with the stock
in a capacity attracting Section 316(5), and whether
there was dishonest use or disposal of the property
in violation of the applicable directions, are matters
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
which require investigation. The provision requires
proof of the requisite entrustment or dominion and
dishonest conduct; the mere designation of a person
as Manager would not, by itself, establish criminal
breach of trust. Nevertheless, the allegations
regarding the petitioner's control over the godown
and the circumstances of the loading and billing are
sufficient to warrant investigation into the
ingredients of the offence.
30. Insofar as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, it is necessary to
notice that the said provision prescribes punishment
for criminal misconduct committed by a public
servant and has to be read with Section 13(1) of the
Act.
31. Section 13(1) contemplates criminal misconduct
where a public servant dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or converts to his own use property
entrusted to him or under his control as a public
servant, or allows another person to do so, or where
such public servant intentionally enriches himself
illicitly during the period of his office.
32. In the present case, the allegation concerns the
handling and alleged unauthorised diversion of ration
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
stock entrusted to the wholesale establishment for
distribution under the public distribution system. The
petitioner, being the Manager in charge of the
godown, is alleged to have exercised control over the
stock and the dispatch operations.
33. It is made clear that Section 13(2) cannot be treated
as an independent substantive offence without
establishing the ingredients of Section 13(1) and the
petitioner's status as a public servant. However, in
the circumstances of the present case, the question
of the petitioner's status, his control over the ration
stock and the alleged dishonest diversion are matters
which can be ascertained during investigation and do
not warrant the quashing of the entire FIR at this
stage.
34. The contention that accused Nos.2 and 3 have
secured interim protection in separate proceedings
on similar grounds would also not, by itself,
constitute a ground for quashing the present FIR.
The circumstances relating to the role played by each
accused, the material available against them and the
nature of the relief granted in the separate
proceedings would have to be examined
independently.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
35. An interim order passed in proceedings concerning
other accused persons does not, by itself, confer an
automatic right upon the petitioner to seek quashing
of the FIR, particularly when the petitioner is alleged
to have been in charge of the activities of the
godown and the dispatch of the ration stock.
36. While exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash
criminal proceedings, is not required to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct a
mini-trial. The consideration is whether the
allegations and the material available disclose a
prima facie basis for proceeding against the accused.
Where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the
offences alleged, the defence of the accused
ordinarily cannot be examined at the threshold to
terminate the proceedings.
37. In the present case, the discrepancy between the
quantity of ration rice loaded into the lorry and the
quantity covered by the bills available at the time of
inspection, coupled with the subsequent generation
of the third bill, gives rise to circumstances which
require examination by the Investigating Officer.
38. The petitioner's explanation that the server was
malfunctioning, the contention that the rice had not
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
left the premises and the circumstances in which the
third bill came to be generated are all matters which
would require scrutiny of the electronic records,
stock registers, dispatch particulars and other
relevant documents.
39. This Court cannot, at this stage, conclude that the
alleged discrepancy was merely technical or that the
petitioner had no role in the alleged unauthorised
movement of ration stock. Equally, this Court is not
recording any finding that the petitioner has
committed the offences alleged. The question is only
whether the allegations and the circumstances
disclosed in the complaint warrant investigation.
40. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no grounds are made out for
exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR in Crime
No.170/2025.
41. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and
this court passes the following:
ORDER
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60691
CRL.P No. 13990 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010658072025
(i) The criminal petition is dismissed.
(ii) The investigation in Crime No.170/2025
registered by RMC Yard Police Station shall
proceed in accordance with law.
(iii) The Investigating Officer shall examine the
relevant electronic billing records, server logs,
stock registers, dispatch documents and the
circumstances surrounding the generation of
Bill No.2190.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made
hereinabove are confined to the consideration
of the present petition and shall not influence
the investigation or any subsequent
proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
05/11/2026, 13:38, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54