Karnataka HC Quashes PDS Rice Case Against Man, Finding Only Co-Accused’s Claim And No Proof Seized Rice Was PDS Stock

In brief

The question

1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner could continue when the material relied on to connect him to the seized rice was only the statement of a co-accused.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 1075/2025, arising from Crime No. 28/2024, in respect of the petitioner alone, for the alleged offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 18 of the Control Order.

It also directed

Any pending interim application was disposed of as not surviving.

01Facts

On 2 February 2024, a Food Inspector, acting on information that PDS rice was stored at accused No. 1’s residence, conducted a raid and seized ten 50-kg bags of rice.

¶ 5–6

Accused No. 1 allegedly stated that the rice had been collected for the petitioner, accused No. 2, and another person.

¶ 5–6

After investigation, police filed a charge sheet alleging offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Section 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

¶ 5–6

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him, contending that the case rested only on accused No. 1’s statement and that the search and seizure did not comply with Section 19(2)(a) of the Control Order.

¶ 8–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner could continue when the material relied on to connect him to the seized rice was only the statement of a co-accused.

¶ 8, 10

ii.2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed where the prosecution material did not establish that the rice was PDS rice or show compliance with Section 19(2)(a) of the Control Order.

¶ 10

03Law Applied

The petition was considered under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court’s inherent-power provision invoked to seek quashing.

¶ 4

The alleged offences arose under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 18 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

¶ 4, 6

The Court followed coordinate-bench orders holding that a case cannot proceed against an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement, and that seizure unsupported by compliance with Section 19(2)(a) of the Control Order cannot sustain the proceedings.

¶ 11–12

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 3 Section 7

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

On reviewing the charge-sheet papers, the Court found no material—apart from accused No. 1’s statement—connecting the petitioner to the rice.

¶ 10–12

The record also contained no material establishing that the seized rice belonged to the PDS or showing that the prescribed procedure under Section 19(2)(a) had been followed during the raid and seizure.

¶ 10–12

Applying the coordinate-bench decisions to these deficiencies, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶ 10–12