Unauthorized possession of fortified PDS rice constitutes a prima facie offence, precluding quashing of criminal proceedings.

On August 21, 2024, Food Officer Ajay Singh Khardiya and other officials inspected the godown of the petitioner, Rais Kha, following reports of unauthorized collection of Public Distribution System (PDS) rice

Officials discovered 308.25 quintals of rice, valued at approximately ₹12,05,948/-, along with evidence of sewing gunny bags

A surveyor reported that the seized grain contained fortified rice kernels, indicating it was meant for the PDS

The petitioner failed to produce valid licenses or purchase documents

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 375/2024) was registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR, alleging the case was based on mere suspicion and faulty sampling

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage

The court primarily applied Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which provide penalties for contravening orders regulating essential commodities

It referred to Clause 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which prohibits the substitution, diversion, or unauthorized storage of food grains kept for the PDS

Regarding the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court relied on the landmark guidelines established in State of Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others (AIR 1992 SC 604)

It further applied the "prima facie" test from Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chanrojirao Angre (1988 (1) SCC 692)

Principle from Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC Online SC 315) that courts should not enter into the merits of allegations or interfere with the investigative agency's power when a cognizable offence is disclosed

The court observed that 308.25 quintals of rice were recovered from the petitioner's possession without any supporting documentation

The surveyor’s report explicitly stated that the samples contained 1.05% fortified rice kernels, identifying the grain as PDS stock

Although the petitioner challenged the surveyor's expertise and the sampling procedure, the court held that the veracity of such technical opinions and procedural regularities are matters to be determined during the trial, not at the quashing stage

Applying the Bhajan Lal criteria, the court found that the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, established a prima facie case of unauthorized storage and diversion of essential commodities

The court noted that the petitioner failed to explain the presence of such a large quantity of fortified rice in his godown and concluded that the prosecution was not maliciously instituted or an abuse of process

The court concluded that no case was made out for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as the allegations were neither absurd nor legally barred

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR