AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suryamurthy, J.—This it a criminal revision case against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, dismissing Criminal Appeal
No. 274 of 1975, and confirming the conviction of the accused in C. C. No. 564 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pudukottai.
The accused was prosecuted for an offence under S. 25 and S. 6(1) and 6(6) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act of 1959
(Act 23 of 1959) (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) and the Kills and Bye-laws framed thereunder, on the allegation that he being a dealer in
groundnut, which is a notified agricultural produce,, fraudulently evaded payment of license fee of Rs. 25. 50/- to the Tiruchirappalli Market
Committee, Tiruchirapalli, prescribed by the said Committee as per its bye-law No. 21 and did not renew the license for the financial year 1974-
75 on or before 30th April, 1974, and thereby contravened the provisions of Ss. 6(i) and 6(6) of the Act and the bye-laws of the Committee.
It is alleged that the offence was committed at Alangudy on 1st May, 1974. He was not prosecuted for any subsequent act of his but for his
failure to obtain license on 30th April, 1974. It is seen from the complaint itself that the offence was deemed to have been committed on 1st May,
1974. It is not alleged that subsequently the offence was continuously committed. In fact, the accused cannot be expected to apply for a license
every day. He is not prosecuted for conducting the business without renewing the license. He has been prosecuted only for not renewing his license
on 30th April, 1974. It is not, therefore, a continuing offence. The ratio of my judgment in Superintendent Regulated Market, Alangudi v.
Marimuthu Crl. App. No. 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 and 401 of 1976 is applicable to the facts of the instant case. The complaint in the instant
case having been filed on 27th August, 1975, to wit, more than six months after the alleged commission of the offence, is barred by S. 468, Crl.
P.C., and, therefore, this revision is allowed, the conviction under S. 6 read with S. 25 of the Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 250/- in default to
suffer R.I. for one month are set aside, and the accused is acquitted.
Before parting with this case, I must point out that the prosecution fails on account of the laces of the enforcement authority. Why action was not
taken in time is a matter to be probed into by the higher authorities concerned.