Tahsildars may search and seize goods under the Karnataka Public Distribution System Control Order.

The Tahsildar received information that rice was being removed from a Karnataka State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation godown and loaded onto a lorry for alleged illegal transportation. He, along with food and revenue officials and two panch witnesses, raided the godown. The complaint alleged that 65 bags had been loaded and 177 more were ready for loading, amounting to 242 bags of rice weighing 12,100 kg; the rice and empty jute bags were seized under a mahazar.

On the Tahsildar’s complaint, the police registered Crime No. 135/2020 for alleged offences under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., principally challenging the Tahsildar’s authority to conduct the raid and lodge the complaint, and disputing that a spot mahazar had been drawn.

Whether the Tahsildar was empowered to search the godown and seize the rice under the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992.

Whether the alleged absence of a spot mahazar, or the asserted defect in the Tahsildar’s authority to complain, warranted quashing the complaint and FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, provide the basis for penal action for contravention of an order regulating essential commodities; Section 11 restricts cognizance of an offence under the Act to a written report by a public servant.

Regulation 19(1) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 empowers specified officials, including a Tahsildar, to search and seize where there is reason to believe that the Order has been or is being contravened.

The Court also referred to Section 100 Cr.P.C. in connection with search procedure and cited Lalitha Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, on registration of an FIR in cognizable cases, but distinguished it on the facts.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioners to seek quashing.

The Court held that Regulation 19(1) expressly conferred search-and-seizure powers on a Tahsildar, rejecting the petitioners’ contention that the Tahsildar lacked authority to conduct the raid.

It distinguished the petitioners’ reliance on Lalitha Kumari because that case involved a police officer conducting the raid, whereas the raid here was conducted by an official empowered under the PDS Control Order.

The Court also found that the record disclosed a spot mahazar and seizure of the rice, including the bags already loaded and those prepared for loading; it therefore rejected the contention that no mahazar had been conducted.

In light of those materials, it found no basis to exercise Section 482 jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

The complaint and FIR in Crime No. 135/2020 were not quashed.