80 Ration-Rice Bags Loaded Before Bill Was Generated: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Godown Manager

The petitioner, manager in charge of a wholesale godown, sought to quash an FIR alleging offences under 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.

During an inspection, 280 bags of ration rice were found loaded in a lorry. Bills covering 200 bags had been generated before the inspection; the remaining 80 bags were not covered by a bill at that time. A third bill, covering those 80 bags and another 20, was generated after the inspection began.

The petitioner attributed the delay to a malfunctioning server and argued that the rice had not left the premises.

He invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 concern compliance with orders regulating essential commodities and punishment for their contravention; under Section 8, an attempt to contravene a Section 3 order is also deemed a contravention.

Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 concerns criminal breach of trust in specified capacities; the offence requires the relevant entrustment or dominion and dishonest conduct, which cannot be established merely by a person’s designation as manager.

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prescribes punishment and must be read with Section 13(1); it is not an independent substantive offence without the ingredients of Section 13(1) and the accused’s status as a public servant.

In exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash proceedings, the Court does not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously assess evidence; where allegations disclose a prima facie basis for investigation, disputed defences ordinarily are not resolved at the threshold.

The Court considered the unexplained discrepancy between the 280 bags loaded and the 200 bags covered by bills at the time of inspection, together with the generation of Bill No. 2190 after the inspection began, sufficient to warrant investigation into possible unauthorised movement or attempted diversion of ration stock.

The server-malfunction explanation and the claim that the rice remained on the premises depended on electronic records, server logs, stock registers and dispatch documents, and could not be accepted as established facts at the quashing stage.

The petitioner’s role, the nature of his control over the stock, and the ingredients of the alleged offences likewise required investigation.

Interim protection granted to other accused did not confer an automatic right to quashing, as their roles and the relief granted had to be assessed independently.

It directed that the investigation proceed in accordance with law and that the Investigating Officer examine the electronic billing records, server logs, stock registers, dispatch documents and circumstances surrounding Bill No. 2190.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the petition and should not influence the investigation or subsequent proceedings.