Gundappa vs Agriculture Produce Market Committee

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Revision is by the accused against the order of conviction passed by the JMFC, Gulbarga in CC 685/2007 on 20.8.2011 confirmed in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Crl. A. 82/2011 on 10.5.2012 for the offence under S. 117 and 114 of the APMC (Regulation) Act, 1966. The allegation is, complainant received credible information about the business being carried out by the accused in the market yard without any license and having made a surprise visit, that hamals were engaged in taking samples from air bags and selling the same in the market yard. The complainant has seized the air bag and panchanama was drawn. It is alleged, accused transacted business of Rs. 5 lakhs illegally in the market yard without any license, thereby there is contravention of S. 8 of the Act and imposed penalty under S. 117 of the Act. Pursuant to the complaint filed, based on the sworn statement and the evidence of one more witness, the trial court raised points for consideration whether there is contravention of S. 8(1)(b) of the APMC Act and committed an offence under S. 117 of the Act, and also whether there is violation of the provisions of Chapter 12 of the APMC Act to the effect that he failed to pay the requisite fee/tax and thereby, committed offence under S. 114 of the Act and answering the same accordingly, while acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 114 of the Act, convicted him for the offence under S. 117 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Against which, in appeal before the Sessions Judge, the appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order of the Magistrate. Hence, this revision.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

The defense of the revision petitioner is, he is an agriculturist and has sold only about 4-5 kgs of agricultural produce and not the quantity as stated in the complaint and he was not aware of the legal provisions and he has not violated any provision under the Act.

There is a concurrent finding by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The defense taken by the petitioner is that the witnesses who have signed Ex. P2 have not been examined and PW 2 who has supported the version of the complainant is an employee of the APMC In the absence of version of independent witness and also in the absence of name of the shop, its nature, etc., those bags which were said to be kept there, does not belong to the petitioner and petitioner has not contravened the provisions of the Act.

A perusal of the allegation made against the accused and also the panchanama reveals that only one bag of tur dal is seized. But according to the prosecution, nearly Rs. 5 lakhs worth agricultural produce were sold without permission and license. As per S. 66 of the Act, any officer in charge of the APMC may require any person carrying on business in any kind of notified agricultural produce to produce before him accounts and other documents and furnish any other information and contravention of the same attracts penalty which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-.

However, in the absence of any material being placed by the prosecution for having sold huge quantity of agricultural produce without license in the market place, it has to be treated that a small quantity is sold by the petitioner as an agriculturist and not in the capacity of a trader. However, there is violation of S. 8 r/w S. 117 of the Act.

In that view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction the accused is sentenced to pay penalty of Rs. 3,000/-. So far as sentencing to undergo imprisonment is concerned, it is hereby modified to undergo sentence for a day till the rising of the court. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- paid towards fine be forfeited to the State. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part.