Karnataka HC Quashes Essential Commodities Act Case Against Man Linked To 65 Bags Of PDS Rice Only By Co-Accused’s Statement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the material collected during the investigation disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in an act contravening Section 3 of the EC Act and thereby an offence under Section 7

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 9506/2022, arising from Crime No. 243/2021, for offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act, insofar as they concerned the petitioner, accused No. 1

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash proceedings against him in C.C. No. 9506/2022, arising from Crime No. 243/2021, for alleged offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (“EC Act”)

¶ 2, 13

The prosecution alleged that a Food Inspector and police found 65 bags of rice meant for the Public Distribution System in a pickup vehicle; the driver stated that he was transporting the rice on the petitioner’s instructions

¶ 4

The petitioner argued that he had no connection to the rice or vehicle and that the case against him rested only on the co-accused driver’s statement

¶ 5

The State opposed the petition, contending that a prima facie case existed and that the charge sheet had been filed

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the material collected during the investigation disclosed the petitioner’s involvement in an act contravening Section 3 of the EC Act and thereby an offence under Section 7

¶ 6–8

ii.2. Whether, in the absence of material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence beyond the co-accused’s statement, continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS

¶ 9–12

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) provides the High Court’s inherent power invoked to seek quashing of proceedings

¶ 2

Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act were the provisions under which the petitioner was charged; the Court considered whether the material disclosed a contravention of Section 3 capable of attracting Section 7

¶ 2, 6–7

The Court stated that a case cannot be made out against an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement and relied on coordinate-bench orders quashing similar EC Act proceedings where no other material had been collected

¶ 9–10

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 3 Section 7

04Reasoning

The Court found no investigative material, apart from the co-accused’s statement, linking the petitioner to the seized rice or the alleged transportation

¶ 6, 8

The investigation had not shown that the petitioner was an authorised dealer, was involved in purchasing or transporting PDS food grains, or had a godown where such rice was illegally collected or stored

¶ 7–8

Applying its stated rule concerning reliance solely on a co-accused’s statement, and following the cited coordinate-bench decisions, the Court concluded that the ingredients of the charged offences were not made out against the petitioner and that a trial would be futile and an abuse of process

¶ 9–12