Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Crl. Petns. 498 etc./83

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant: M.P. Eswarappa and B.S. Raikote, Advocates.
For the Respondent: M. V. Devaraju, Special Public Prosecutor.

Judges

N.D Venkatesh, J.

Acts

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SPECIAL PROVISIONS ACT 1981
Act, the provisions of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure)
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Selected Criminal Petitions under the Essential Commodities Act, 1983)

Factual and Procedural Background

Several criminal petitions arising in 1983 under provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were clubbed because common questions of law and fact arose. Cr. P. No. 498 of 1983 and the petitions of Sharamma and Yenkanna were presented under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (anticipatory bail); Cr. Ps. 499 and 500 of 1983 were under Section 439 of the Code.

The police registered cases against the petitioners for alleged violations of various Orders made under the Essential Commodities Act. In Cr. Ps. 498, 499 and 500 the petitioners, described as wholesale dealers in food grains, rice and paddy, were alleged to have contravened the Karnataka Food Grains Declaration of Stock Order, 1967 and Rule 8 of the Karnataka Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Their mill premises were raided and available stocks and account books were seized.

In Cr. P. No. 513/83 (Sharamma) the allegation was possession of 101 bags of cement without a valid licence in breach of the Karnataka Cement Control Order, 1973; Sadar Bazaar Police, Raichur, registered Crime No. 175 of 1983. In Cr. P. No. 514/83 (Yenkanna) the rice mill was raided, the accounts allegedly did not tally and 523 bags of rice were seized (Manvi Police).

Petitioners Siddappa and Nagarajappa were in judicial custody after arrest and production before the Special Court (Court of Sessions, Shimoga), who had committed them to judicial lock up. Other petitioners sought anticipatory bail or release on bail.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Special Court erred in committing Siddappa and Nagarajappa to judicial custody when they were not required for further investigation and thus whether they should be released on bail.
Whether, and to what extent, Special Courts constituted under the Essential Commodities Act have discretion to grant bail or anticipatory bail notwithstanding apparent statutory limits—i.e., the scope of Special Courts' bail powers under Section 12AA (and related provisions) of the Act and the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure to these proceedings.
Whether the petitioners who had their commodities and account books seized (including petitioners in Cr. P. Nos. 498, 513 and 514) should be granted anticipatory bail or released on bail and subject to what conditions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Special Court erred in committing Siddappa and Nagarajappa to judicial lock up because they were not required for further investigation and therefore should have been released on bail immediately.
Counsel also argued that Special Courts appeared to operate under an incorrect impression that their powers under the Act with respect to bail were more circumscribed than those conferred by the Code, resulting in undue hesitation to grant bail or anticipatory bail.

State's (Prosecution) Arguments

The learned State Public Prosecutor stated that the prosecution would object to custody or continued detention only when custody was required for further investigation; otherwise, the prosecution would normally not object to grant of bail provided appropriate conditions were satisfied.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab	Explanation of the ambit and scope of Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of the Code; guiding the exercise of discretion in anticipatory bail applications.	The Court held that Special Courts, being deemed as Courts of Session and subject to the Code by S.12AC of the Act, should exercise their discretion in anticipatory bail matters in the manner explained by the Supreme Court in Sibbia. The Court relied on Sibbia's guidance when addressing anticipatory bail applications in these petitions.
Ayya v. State of Karnataka	Procedural direction that revisions under Section 438 should ordinarily be filed, at first instance, in the concerned Special Courts.	The Court observed that the remaining revisions under S.438 should have been filed originally in the Special Courts as per Ayya, but notwithstanding that procedural point, the Court proceeded to dispose of the applications on their merits.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first identified the legislative framework: after amendment by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, offences under the Essential Commodities Act are triable exclusively by Special Courts constituted for that purpose. Special provisions exist concerning investigation, arrest, detention, bail and disposal of seized commodities.

The Court analysed the specific statutory provisions governing Special Courts' power to deal with persons accused or suspected of offences under the Act—principally Section 12AA(1)(b), (c) and (d) as reproduced in the opinion. Those provisions:

Require Magistrates to authorise detention for limited periods where a person is forwarded under Section 167 of the Code.
Provide that the Special Court may exercise, in relation to persons forwarded to it, the same powers which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code (S.12AA(1)(c)).
Provide that no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Special Court or the High Court (S.12AA(1)(d)), subject to provisos.

The Court emphasised the provisos to S.12AA(1)(d): (i) the Special Court should ordinarily give the prosecution an opportunity to be heard before granting bail unless it is not practicable to do so (in which event reasons must be recorded), and (ii) even where the prosecution opposes bail and there appear reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty, the Special Court retains a residual discretion under the proviso to release the person on bail if it is "just and proper" to do so for special reasons to be recorded in writing. The Court illustrated permissible considerations (drawn from the opinion itself) such as custody not being required for investigation, absence of habitual offending, and low risk of absconding.

The Court further noted Section 12AC of the Act, which subjects proceedings under the Act to the provisions of the Code and deems Special Courts to be Courts of Session for the purpose of those provisions. Accordingly, in anticipatory bail matters the Special Courts possess powers similar to a Court of Sessions and should exercise discretion in line with Supreme Court authority (Sibbia).

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found:

For Siddappa and Nagarajappa: although their mill premises were raided and stocks and books seized, they were not required for further investigation. The Court therefore upheld their claim to be released on bail.
For other petitioners whose goods and account books were seized or otherwise attached (including petitioners in Cr. P. Nos. 498, 513 and 514): the presence of seized commodities and books led the Court to conclude they may not be required by the Investigating Officer; accordingly, the Court considered them suitable for anticipatory bail or release on bail subject to conditions.
Procedurally, the Court acknowledged that some petitions under Section 438 should have been filed first in the relevant Special Courts (Ayya), but elected to decide the matters on merits because of representations that Special Courts had been improperly narrowing the scope of bail under the Act.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core rulings):

Cr. Ps. Nos. 499 and 500 of 1983 are allowed; Cr. Ps. Nos. 513 and 514 of 1983 are allowed; Cr. P. No. 498 of 1983 is partly allowed; the application of Murugeshappa (petitioner No.1 in Cr. P. No. 498) is disposed of.

Specific orders and direct effects on the parties (as recorded in the opinion):

Siddappa and Nagarajappa (Cr. Ps. Nos. 499 and 500 of 1983): The Special Court, Shimoga, is directed to release each on bail provided each executes a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of a like amount to the Special Court's satisfaction.
Sharamma (Cr. P. No. 513/83): If arrested in Crime No. 175 of 1983 (Sadar Bazaar Police, Raichur), she may be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
Yenkanna (Cr. P. No. 514/83): If arrested in Crime No. 105 of 1983 (Manvi Police), he may be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
Petitioners 2 to 6 in Cr. P. No. 498 of 1983: If arrested in Crime No. 135 of 1983 (Shimoga Rural Police), they will be released on bail upon each executing a bond of Rs. 5,000 with one surety of a like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. Murugeshappa's application is left pending in the Special Court (disposed of in the sense noted by the opinion).
Common conditions imposed on all persons released on anticipatory bail by this order: they must make themselves available for interrogation when required by the Investigating Officer; they must not interfere with the investigation; and they must not leave the country without prior permission of the Special Court concerned.

Implications:

The decision affords immediate, case-specific relief to the petitioners named and prescribes bond and surety amounts and standard supervisory conditions on release.
The Court reaffirmed that Special Courts have discretion under the Act to grant bail or anticipatory bail, subject to statutory provisos and the requirement to record reasons when deviating from normal practice; the Code applies to proceedings under the Act and Special Courts are to exercise their powers in line with established Supreme Court guidance on anticipatory bail.
The opinion did not announce or characterize a new general precedent beyond its application of existing statutory provisions and cited authorities; the ruling's practical effect is limited to the release or anticipatory bail directions specified for the parties in these petitions.

Show full summary ...

Murugeshappa, S. & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka

1. Cr. P. No. 498 of 1983 and the petitions of Sharamma and Yenkanna are under S. 438 of the Crl. PC. 1973 (the Code); and Cr. Ps. 499 and 500 of 1983 are under S. 439 of the Code.

2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these cases they were clubbed and heard together. In all these cases the local police have registered cases against these petitioners for alleged violations of certain Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act).

3. The allegations against the petitioners in Cr. P. Nos. 498, 499 and 500 of 1983 are that they, as wholesale dealers in food grains, rice and paddy had Violated Karnataka Food Grains Declaration of Stock Order, 1967 and R. 8 of Karnataka Food Grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, and thereby had committed offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 7 of the Act. Their mill premises were raided and the available stock of food grains and account books seized.

4. The complaint against Sharamma, the petitioner in Cr. P. No. 513/83, is that she was in possession of 101 bags of cement without a valid licence and thereby had violated Karnataka Cement Control Order, 1973, read with Ss. 3 and 7 of the Act. Sadar Bazaar Police, Raichur, have registered a case against her under the aforesaid provisions in their Cr. No. 175 of 1983.

5. The petitioner, Yenkanna, in Cr. P 514/83 is said to have violated the relevant order issued under the Act. It is stated that when his rice mill was raided and account books examined by the Manvi Police, the accounts did not tally in the matter of actual stock shown in the account books 523 bags of rice were seized by the police.

6. Petitioners Siddappa and Nagarajappa are in judicial custody. After they were arrested by the Investigating Officer they were produced before the Spl. Court-the Court of Sessions, Shimoga-and they have been committed to judicial lock up.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while seeking bail for those who are in judicial lockup, and anticipatory bail in respect of the other petitioners, submitted that the Spl. Court had erred in committing Siddappa and Nagarajappa to judicial lock up and should have released them immediately on bail since they were not required for any investigation. It was further argued that in the matter of granting bail or anticipatory bail the Spl. Courts appear to be under an impression that their powers under the Act in the matter are more circumscribed than under the Code and, therefore, this hesitation on their part.

8. The learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that only in cases where the custody of the accused is required for further investigation, an objection would be raised on behalf of the prosecution to commit them to judicial lock up or police custody, as the case may be, and in all other cases normally the prosecution would have no objection to release them on ball provided other conditions are satisfied.

9. Under the Act, as it stands after its amendment by the Essential Commodities (Spl Provisions) Act, 1981 (Central Act No. 18 of 1981), the offences arising thereunder are triable exclusively by the Spl. Courts constituted for that purpose. In this State Spl. Courts have been constituted with Sessions judges of Courts of Session having the requisite qualification.

10. In the matter of investigation into the offences, arrest and detention of suspected offenders, their release on bail and trial and re: the disposal of the essential commodity and other articles seized during the investigation, there are special provisions in the Act.

11. Now, coming to the powers of the Spl. Courts in the matter of bail, provisions of the Act relevant for our purpose are S. 12AA(1)(c)(d) (i) and (ii). They read as under:

“12AA. Offences triable by Special Courts:—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code:—

(a) all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Spl. Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more Spl. Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the High Court;

(b) where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-sec. (2) or sub-sec. (2A) of S. 167 of the Code, such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in such custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding 15 days on the whole where such Magistrate is a Judicial Magistrate and 7 days on the whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate;

(i) when such person is forwarded to him as aforesaid; or

(ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention authorised by him;

that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he may, if he is satisfied that the case falls under the proviso to S. 8, order the release of such person on bail and if he is not so satisfied, he shall order such person to be forwarded to the Spl. Court having jurisdiction;

(c) the Spl. Court may, subject to the provisions of Cl. (d) of this sub-section exercise in relation to the person forwarded to it under Cl. (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try a case may exercise under S. 167 of the Code in relation to an accused person in such case who has been forwarded to him under that section;

(d) save as aforesaid no person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail by any Court other than a Spl. Court or the High Court:

Provided that a Spl. Court shall not release any such person on bail—

(i) without giving the prosecution an opportunity to oppose the application for such release unless the Spl. Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is of opinion that it is not practicable to give such opportunity; and

(ii) where the prosecution opposes the application, if the Spl. Court is satisfied that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the offence concerned:

Provided further that the Spl. Court may direct that any such person may be released on ball if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm person, if the Spl. Court is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason to be recorded in writing”.

12. When the Spl. Court is moved with a request to release the accused on bail it has to hear the accused or the counsel for the accused and the Prosecutor unless for some reason that Court feels that, in the circumstances, it would not be practicable to hear the Public Prosecutor. When would such a contingency arise? That may arise if the Public Prosecutor is not in town or is not otherwise available and the Court feels that the matter, being extremely urgent, has to be taken up. Most of the bail matters will have to be dealt with on top priority basis for the reason that at stake is the freedom of an individual only under suspicion of having committed an offence. If, for some such reason, the Court feels that it is not practicable to hear the Public Prosecutor, he has to leave on records the reasons for having so proceeded in the matter.

13. It is true that sub-Cl. (ii) of Cl. (d) says that ‘where the prosecution opposes the application, if the Spl. Court is satisfied that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the offence concerned’ the Spl. Court ‘shall not release’ the person accused of the offence. But the proviso to this sub-clause contains an important exception and that confers enough discretion on the Special Court in the matter. The proviso contains a clause which says that ‘if the Spl. Court is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason to be recorded in writing’, it may release such person on bail. This means even in cases where the Public Prosecutor opposes the granting of bail and even if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused or suspected has been guilty of the offences alleged, the Spl. Court may release him on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do as provided in the proviso. If the Court is satisfied that his detention or custody is not required during investigation, that be is not a habitual offender, or that he will not abscond, these may be reasons to release him on bail.

14. Save as otherwise provided in the Act, the provisions of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure) do apply to these proceedings (See S. 12 AC of the Act). While exercising their powers under those provision they are deemed as Courts of Sessions. Thus, in the matter of anticipatory bail, Spl. Courts have powers similar to that the Court of Sessions. In dealing with claims for anticipatory bail arising under S. 438 of the Code, the Spl. Courts will exercise their discretion fairly and properly keeping in view the ambit and scope of that provision as explained by the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab(1).

15. Let us now examine, in the light of what is stated above, the cases on hand.

16. As already stated in Siddappa's and Nagarajappa's case their mill premises have been raided and the essential commodities attached and their account books have also been seized. It is evident that they are not required for further investigation and that is why they ore committed to judicial lock up. In the circumstances their claim that they have to be released on bail has to be upheld.

17. The remaining revisions being applications under S. 438 of the Code the same, as observed by this Court in Ayya v. State of Karnataka(2) should have been filed at the first instance in the concerned Spl. Courts. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that taking a narrow view of the relevant provisions of the Act the Spl. Courts have not been treating these cases like other cases of anticipatory bail coming before Sessions Courts, I propose to dispose of these applications on merits.

18. In Cr. P No. 498 of 1983 the 1st petitioner, Murugeshappa, it appears, has applied on 20-6-1983 for anticipatory bail. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Spl. Court has posted that application to 24-6-1983. In so far as Murugeshappa's application is concerned it is pending there and therefore it may not be necessary to consider his case now. In so far as the others in this petition are concerned, as already stated, their essential commodities and the account books have been seized and they may not be required by the Investigating Officer, and, if required by him, the petitioners may be directed to appear before him.

19. Likewise, in Cr. Ps Nos. 513 and 514 of 1983 also the essential commodities, in relation to which the violation is alleged to have taken place, are attached. They can also be released on anticipatory bail.

20. Accordingly, Cr. Ps. Nos. 499 and 500 of 1983 are allowed. The Spl. Court, Shimoga, is hereby directed to release Siddappa and Nagarajappa on bail on each of them executing bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000 with a surety in a like sum to his satisfaction. Cr. Ps. Nos. 513 and 514 of 1983 are allowed. In case Sadar Bazaar Police, Raichur, were to arrest in their Crime No. 175 of 1983 the petitioner, Sharamma, she may be released on bail on her executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with a surety in a like sum to their satisfaction. In the event of the Manvi Police arresting the petitioner, Yenkanna in Cr. P. No. 514/83 in their Crime No. 105 of 1983, he may be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000 with a surety in a like sum to their satisfaction.

21. Cr. P. No. 498 of 1983 is partly allowed. If Shimoga Rural Police, in their Crime No. 135 of 1983, were to arrest petitioners 2 to 6 in the above case, they will release these persons on bail on each of them executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with a surety in a like sum to their satisfaction. The application of Murugeshappa, petitioner No. 1, in that case, for reasons stated above, is disposed of. All the above petitioners, who are released on anticipatory bail by this order will make themselves available to the Investigating Officers concerned as and when their presence is required by them for purpose of interrogation. These persons will not, in any manner, interfere with the investigation and will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Special Court concerned.

Murugeshappa, S. & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Selected Criminal Petitions under the Essential Commodities Act, 1983)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

State's (Prosecution) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Murugeshappa, S. & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka

Comments