Alleged PDS Rice Transport: Karnataka HC Quashes EC Act Case Against Accused 6, Says Police Lacked Authority

The petitioner, Accused No. 6, sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, arising from Crime No. 87/2021 and pending in C.C. No. 124/2022.

The prosecution alleged that, following information received by a police officer, three trucks carrying rice allegedly meant for the Public Distribution System were stopped and seized while being transported from Gurumitkal towards Gujarat.

The police later filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others.

The petitioner contended that there was no material against him apart from statements made by Accused Nos. 2 to 5.

The Court considered Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, concerning the alleged contravention and its punishment, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the source of its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court.

It applied the principle that investigation and seizure for alleged violations of the Act must be undertaken by an officer authorised under the Act; proceedings initiated by police lacking the requisite authority are unsustainable.

The Court relied on three coordinate-Bench orders concerning proceedings under the Act.

Although the petitioner also invoked Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the need for corroboration of an accomplice’s evidence, the order does not set out a separate determination of that argument.

The Court found that the investigation had produced no material against the petitioner other than statements of Accused Nos. 2 to 5.

It further concluded that the police lacked jurisdiction to register the case and lacked authority to seize the commodity, because those powers lay with an authorised officer under the Essential Commodities Act.

Applying the coordinate-Bench decisions and its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, the Court held that continuing the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process.

Any pending interim application was disposed of as not surviving for consideration.