Vishawanath Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

VISHAWANATH S/O BASAWRAJ PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O SHIV SHAKTI DAL INDUSTRY, NANDUR KESARTAGI INDUSTRIAL SHAHABAD ROAD, KALABURAGI-585228.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SMT/ MISS KEERTHANA A. BAGALWADI AND SRI. ARNAVA BAGALWADI, ADVOCATES)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI-585103.

¶18

SMT. BHARATHI PATIL, FOOD INSPECTOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTIVE OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUNDA KALABURAGI CITY, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.35/2022 VIDE FIR NO.1362/2020 IN CRIME NO.111 OF 2020 OF UNIVERSITY POLICE STATION KALABURAGI AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 AND 7 OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT PENDING OF THE FILE OF HON’BLE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALABURAGI.

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.12.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

Captioned petition is by the sole accused seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No.35/2022 arising out of Crime No.111/2020 of University Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi (herein after referred to as the ‘EC Act’).

¶28

On 25.08.2020, the respondent

¶29

No.2/complainant conducted a raid on petitioner's

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

premises named as Shivshakti Dal Industries. During the said raid, rice and wheat allegedly supplied under the Public Distribution System (PDS) were found stored, valued at Rs.7,11,414/-. It was further alleged that the petitioner being the owner of the industry had stored the said food grains illegally and was likely to sell them in the black market. Based on these allegations, Crime No.111/2020 came to be registered for offices punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the EC Act.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds asserts that petitioner is a licensed dealer and holds valid permission from the competent authority to store food grains. Petitioner's primary grievance is that despite petitioner/accused producing relevant documents at the time of raid indicating that a tender has been awarded to the petitioner for handling food grains and a letter is issued by the Tahasildar, these documents were overlooked and Investigating Officer without securing any material showing procurement of PDS food grains illegally,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

has lodged a complaint, which culminated in registration of crime and Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet. It is contended that no material has been produced to show that petitioner intended to sell the food grains at a higher price or in the black market. He would also point out that charge sheet is completely silent about violation of control order namely Section 3 of the EC Act, which is alleged to have been violated. Further he has submitted that for an offence under Section 7 of EC Act to be made up, the contravention of valid control order issued under Section 3 is a mandatory prerequisite. In absence of such allegation or material, prosecution under Section 7 of the EC Act cannot stand. Reliance is placed on judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T. Tippeswamy V. State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.5130/2023 . Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by High Court of Bombay in Vijay

¶37

Machindra Markad and Another V. State of Maharastra reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 261

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Referring to these materials he would point out there are absolutely no materials to indicate breach of any specific control order and the prosecution case is based solely on the apprehension that petitioner may sell the grains in the black market. He would point out that law requires actual contravention not an assumption of possibility. Therefore, he sought for quashing of the proceedings.

¶41

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that there is enough material to proceed against the petitioner/accused and therefore it is not a fit case to grant any indulgence. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶42

On examining the records and having heard the

¶43

counsels on both sides, following point would arise for consideration:

¶44

“Whether continuation of proceedings in CC

¶45

No.35/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of EC Act, in absence of prima

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

facie incrementing materials, amounts to abuse

¶50

of process and are liable to be quashed?”

¶51

The point for consideration is answered in the

¶52

‘affirmative’ for the following reasons:

¶53

The gist of the prosecution case is based solely on apprehension that petitioner may sell the food grains in the black market. The petitioner in the captioned petition has produced lawful tender documents, which were in fact furnished at the time of the raid. Prima facie there is no material indicating illegal procurement or storage. In fact petitioner is able to demonstrate that a tender has been awarded to the petitioner for handling food grains, evidenced along with a memo to this petition. The Investigating Officer despite raid has not secured any material indicating violation of Section 3 of EC Act.

¶54

On perusal of complaint, Mahazar and charge sheet papers, two allegations are primarily pressed against the petitioner. Firstly illegal possession of rice and wheat

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

allegedly belonging to PDS. Secondly, the petitioner is likely to sell the same in the black market. However, the materials placed on record demonstrates that a tender has been awarded to the petitioner for handling food grains. The letter issued by the Tahasildar also demonstrates that petitioner possessing a valid permission from the competent authority to store food grains, is now charged with violation of Section 3 of EC Act. It is quite relevant to note that the allegation is based on mere apprehension that food grains might be sold in the black market. The above-cited judgments clearly lay down that the speculative apprehension does not constitute an offence.

¶58

The complaint itself records that petitioner's father produced the letter issued by the Tahasildar, confirming award of tender to the petitioner, thereby justifying possession of the food grains.

¶59

Therefore, even if the entire charge sheet materials are accepted at its face value, there are absolutely no prima facie incrementing materials,

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

indicating violation of Section 3 of EC Act. Absence of reference to any order under Section 3 of EC Act vitiates the registration of crime. This Investigating Officer despite filing charge sheet has not secured any material proving procurement of PDS food grains illegally. For an offence under Section 7 of EC Act to be made out, the contravention of valid Control Order issued under Section 3 of EC Act is a mandatory prerequisite. In absence of such allegation or material, prosecution under Section 7 of EC Act cannot stand. In absence of independent corroboration and absence of proof that grains were PDS stock, further weaken the prosecution. It is in this background this Court is of the view that even if petitioner is subjected to long ordeal of criminal trial, the chance of conviction is very bleak. Petitioner at this juncture is able to demonstrate that his possession over the food grains was valid and legal and therefore the ingredients of offence under Sections 3 and 7 of EC Act are not made out against him. The prosecution case is therefore

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7763 CRL.P No. 201538 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

unsustainable. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. To prevent abuse of process, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i. Petition is allowed .

¶69

ii. Proceedings pending in CC No.35/2022 arising

¶70

out of Crime No.111/2020 of University Police Station, Dist. Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kalaburagi are quashed.

¶71

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶72

NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46

Vishawanath v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishawanath v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajshekhar S/O Kalyanraopatil Vs the State of Karnataka

Yankanna Yadav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sugureshwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bismilla Bee and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.

Viresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh Metre Vs the State of Karnataka