Palladam Regulated Market, Coimbatore Market Committee vs K.A.R.M.R. Harichandran

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—This is an appeal filed by the complainant, Palladam Regulated Market, Coimbatore, Market Committee, Palladam,

against the order of the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tirupur, acquitting the accused-Respondent, Harichandran, of an offence u/s 6(1)

of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act. The accusation against the accused is that he purchased cotton from a merchant in Palladam

taluk, which is within the notified area, during the year 1967-68 without obtaining a licence by remitting license fee of Rs. 25.

P. W. 1 is the Superintendent of the Palladam Regulated Market, Coimbatore Market Committee. His evidence is that Coimbatore District has

been declared to be a notified area for the purpose of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1959 in respect of cotton groundnut and

tobacco by a notification issued in the Fort St. George Gazette by the Tamil Nadu Government, and that the accused has purchased 8966 quintals

of kapas for Rs. 9352-43 np. as per invoice No. 60 and 86-13 quintals of kapas for Rs. 8984-22 p. as per invoice No. 61 on 25th July, 1967

from A. R. Chennimalai and Co. Somanur, who is undoubtedly a licensee u/s 6(1) of the Act. The gravamen of the complaint against the accused-

Respondent is that he has not obtained any licence from the Coimbatore Market Committee for buying cotton in Coimbatore District which is a

notified area. The accused was called upon to take out a licence; but evidently, the accused did not further move in the matter.

The plea of the accused is one of denial. He admitted that he purchased cotton. But he contended that he was not liable to take out a licence.

The facts are not controverted by either side in this case. The entire question, as has been rightly posed by the Magistrate, is one of construction

of S. 6(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959. The material portion of S. 6(1) is extracted below:

S. 6(1): No person shall, within a notified area, set up, establish or use, or continue or allow to be continued, any place for the purchase or sale,

storage, weighment, pressing or processing of any notified agricultural produce, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence

granted to him by the market committee.

The learned trial Magistrate rejected the contention of the prosecution that the accused purchased cotton from a notified area, that Palladam

comes within the expression ''any place for the purchase or sale, etc'' and, that, therefore, the accused is bound to take out a licence. The trial

Magistrate was justified, in my opinion, in rejecting this erroneous interpretation of S. 6(1) of the Act. The reasonable construction of the section

would be that no person shall let up any place for the purchase or sale, etc. etc., within a notified area. Equally, no person shall establish or use any

place for the purchase or sale, etc. Obviously, the recorded evidence does not warrant any conclusion that the accused has used any place either

for purchase or sale, of cotton. No doubt, he purchased from A. R. Chennimalai and Co. at Palladam certain quantity of cotton. The seller is

bound to remain in some place, when he sold it. The buyer is also bound to remain in some place when he purchased it. But that would not warrant

the construction of the term ""any place"" to cover the transaction of purchase, just because the accused went to Palladam and purchased the cotton.

Such an interpretation is wholly opposed to all canons of construction.

The trial Magistrate''s order is perfectly correct and proper. This is an appeal which is totally devoid of any merit, and the same is dismissed.