Vishwanath S/O Dundappa Nashti vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Vishwanath S/o. Dundappa Nashti, a businessman, is challenging criminal proceedings initiated against him. The prosecution alleges that on November 11, 2013, a raid on his godown revealed rice allegedly meant for Public Distribution System (PDS) distribution. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Sections 18(a), (b), and (c) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. The petitioner has provided a license for purchase and sale of rice and invoices showing GST payment for rice supply and sale. Crucially, the seized rice was not sent for forensic analysis to confirm its PDS status.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This finding is based on the absence of substantial evidence to prove that the seized rice was PDS stock. The Court noted that the seized rice was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Additionally, no material was placed on record to substantiate that the petitioner had procured rice from fair price shops authorized to distribute rice under the public distribution system. The petitioner had provided a license authorizing the purchase and sale of rice and invoices evidencing GST payment for its supply and sale. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that without concrete evidence linking the seized goods to a specific illegal purpose (like diversion of PDS stock), and in the presence of documentation suggesting legitimate business activity, continuing criminal proceedings would be unjust.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is an abuse of process of law in the absence of evidence proving the seized rice was PDS stock? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the proceedings constitute an abuse of process of law. He contended that he possesses a valid license for the purchase and sale of rice and has paid GST on its supply and sale, as evidenced by the annexed documents. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish that the seized rice was indeed PDS stock, as it was not sent for forensic examination. There is no material to show the petitioner procured rice from authorized fair price shops. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State did not present any arguments against the petitioner's contentions.