Vijay Kumar vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Another

Mohd. Yamin, J.—The instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner Vijay Kumar who was convicted by learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 28(2) and 37(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act of 1961''). He was given benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. An appeal was preferred by him which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar on 15-12-1990 by which the petitioner was acquitted from charge of Section 28(2) of the Act of 1961 but was held liable for contravening the bye-laws and as such conviction u/s 37(2) of the Act of 1961 was upheld.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that conviction of the petitioner for offence u/s 37(2) of the Act of 1961 is illegal as it provides that if any bye-law made under this section may provide that any contravention thereof shall on conviction by punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees then only the petitioner could be convicted and that too with a fine which may extend to fifty rupees. He submitted that there is no bye-law which may provide for contravention shall be punishable as per Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1961. He submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously interpreted the provision of Section 37 of the Act of 1961.

I have gone through the bye-laws (Bylaw 40(2)) which are said to have been contravened by the petitioner. They do not provide that contravention thereof shall be punishable. As such the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in holding that the petitioner was rightly convicted for offence u/s 37(2) of the Act of 1961. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 agrees that such an interpretation could not have been made.

Consequently, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge u/s 37(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.