Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The Agricultural Market Committee, vs Sai Lakshmi Traders Another, on 15 February, 2024

Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy

Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy

                                                       1



  APHC010203642007


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                                                  (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                                                                                                 [ 3327 ]
                                       THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
                                           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR



                                                   PRESENT



                            THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1840 OF 2007
Between:
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,                                                      ...APELLANT(S)

                                                     AND
SAI LAKSHMI TRADERS ANOTHER AND OTHERS                                                 ...RESPODENT(S)


Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. B PRAKASAM (Sr SC FOR A M C )

Counsel for the Respondents: 5739/NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:



                            [THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY]
                                    2



  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

             Criminal Appeal No.1840 of 2007
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal

dated Judgment dated 08.08.2007 passed in CC No 179 of 2004 by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District,

whereby 1st respondent/accused was found not guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural

Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short "the Act") for

violation of under Section 12-C of the Act and accordingly acquitted of

the said offence.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the appellant/

complainant viz. Agricultural Market Committee, Chinthalapudi, is a

statutory body and it has authority to issue license, levy market fee,

etc. on traders who are doing business in the agricultural produce

within its notified area. 1st respondent/accused is a trader in Rice and

Paddy and he is doing business within the jurisdiction of the

complainant under the name and style Sai Lakshmi Traders. He did

business for the three years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. When

the accused submitted his account books for the above years, the

assessing authority assessed the market fee dues payable by the

accused as Rs. 20,004/-, Rs. 17,296/- and Rs. 27,065/- for the years

1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 respectively (Exs.P.1 to P.3). The

accused did not pay the market fee due even though he was given 15

days' time for payment of dues. Thereupon, the complainant issued

show cause notice No. 34/SR/2003, dated 7.1.2004; 24/SR/2003,

dated 8.1.2004; 55/SR/2003, dated 8.1.2004 with 7 days' time to

show-cause why prosecution should not be launched against him for

the offence punishable under Section 23(1) for violation of section

12(1), 12C (3) of the Act and amended Act of 1987. Ultimately, the

accused was informed vide office Lr.No. 34/SR/2003, dated 3.2.2004

(Ex. P.4) that action was being taken against him to file prosecution

for non-payment of market fee dues. Though the accused was given

ample opportunity, he did not pay the dues or given any reply. As the

accused failed to pay the market fee, a resolution dated 20.02.2004

was passed to launch prosecution against the accused (Ex.P.5). Ex.P.6

is the copy of Notification of Agricultural Market Committee,

Chinthalapudi. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. As such accused is

liable for punishment under 23 (1) of the Act and amended Act of

1987.

3. The complaint was taken cognizance as C.C.No.179 of

2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi.

On appearance, copies of case documents were furnished to the

accused and the accused was examined under Section 251 CrPC, for

which he denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

trial.

4. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 was

examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating

material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, for which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was

adduced on behalf of defence.

6. The learned Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence on

record, found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under

Section 23(1) for violation of Section 12(1), 12 C (3) of the Act and

amended Act of 1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal,

Agricultural Market Committee preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Agricultural

Marketing Committee appearing for the appellant and the learned

counsel for the respondent/Accused.

8. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant/ complainant submits that Section 12(1) of the Act

empowers the Market Committee to levy market fee on the notified

commodities purchased or sold within notified market area. He further

contended that Section 12 C (3) of the Act says that if the market fees

assessed under this Act or any installment thereof is not paid by any

trader within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or

in the order permitting payment in installments, the traders shall pay

in addition to the amount of such market fees or installment, interest

at the rate of twelve percent per annum of such amount from the date

when the market fees becomes due. 1st respondent/ accused had

contravened Sec. 12 (1) of the Act by not paying the market fee dues.

As there is violation of Section 12 (1), 12 C (3) of the Act, 1st

respondent/accused is liable for punishment under Section 23 (1) of

the Act. He further submits that there is enabling penal provision viz.

Section 23 of the Act, for contravention of the said provisions, but the

trial Court erred in acquitting 1st respondent/accused holding that

there is no corresponding penal provision for the said contravention.

As such, he prayed to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and to

convict him.

9. Learned counsel for 1st respondent relied upon the judgment

of B. Youdhister vs The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee,

Jogipet and another1 contended that after introduction of Sections

12A, 12B and 12C of the Act, there is no corresponding amendment

to Section 23 of the Act extending penalisation for the violation

of Sections 12A, 12B and 12C as an offence, and therefore, when once

violation of the said Sections is not made penal, there cannot be any

prosecution for their violation, and considering these aspects, the trial

Court rightly acquitted 1st respondent/ accused and there are no

grounds to interfere with the same.

1991 CRILJ 277

10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the

appellant/complainant has made out any case beyond all reasonable

doubt to convict 1st respondent/accused ?

11. The allegation against the accused is that he did not pay the

market fee dues assessed by the complainant for the years 1999-2000,

2000-2001, 2001-2002 assessed at Rs. 20,004/-, Rs. 17,296/- and

Rs.27,065/- respectively as such he is liable for punishment under

Section 23 of the Act, for violation of under Section 12 (1), 12 C (3) of

the Act. To substantiate its case, the complainant examined PW1 and

marked Exs. P1 to P6. PW1 is the retired Special Grade Secretary in

Agricultural Market Committee, Chinthalapudi. According to him,

Brahmam was Supervisor under him; he filed a complaint against

accused as Proprietor of Sai Lakshmi Traders, Chinthalapudi doing

business in Rice and Paddy. Despite service of assessment order, show

cause notice and other reminders the accused did not pay the market

fee dues payable as Rs. 20,004/-, Rs. 17,296/- and Rs. 27,065/- for

the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 respectively.

12. The trial Court held that Section 12 (1) of the Act authorized

the complainant to levy market fee and Section 12 C authorizes the

complainant to collect such fee from the accused, and that when the

accused did not pay the market fee, the violation must be under

Section 12C [3] but not under Section 12(1) or both, and based on

judgment in B. Youdhister vs the Secretary, Agricultural Market

Committee, Jogipet and another (1 supra), it is held that though there

was such violation of Section 12 C of the Act, there was no

corresponding penal provision in Section 23 of the Act, and holding so,

the trial Court acquitted 1st respondent/accused.

13. In Agricultural Market Committee, Andhra Pradesh and

Others vs. M.K. Exports, Andhra Pradesh and Others2 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that Section 12-A to 12-G were inserted in the Act

by the Act 4 of 1987. Section 23 of the Act, thus, provides for penalty

to be imposed against a person who contravenes the provisions

of Section 7 or who fails to pay fees levied under sub-section (1)

of Section 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows:

"16. The fee is levied by the market committee on sale or purchase of any notified agricultural produce or livestock or products of livestock in the notified market area by virtue of Section 12(1) of the Act. For a levy of fee, it is necessary that amount of market fees payable by the trader is assessed by the assessing authority. The procedure for assessment is provided in Section 12-B. The assessment of market fees is done under sub-section (1). Sub-section (5) of that Section, however, provides that if, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of the trader has escaped assessment to market fees or has been under assessed or assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, the assessing authority may, at any time within a period of three years from the date on which the assessment order was served on the trader, inter alia, assess the correct amount of market fees payable on the turnover that has been under- assessed after issuing notice to the trader and after making such inquiry as it may consider necessary. The assessing authority, under Section 12-B(5) may also direct the trader to pay penalty, equal

(2011) 13 SCC 290

to two times the market fees, in addition to the market fees so assessed. As per the Scheme of the Act, it is the assessment of market fee under Section 12-B(1) or re-assessment under Section 12-

B(5) which ultimately results in levy of fee under Section 12(1).

17. We find the reasoning of the High Court strange when it says that further assessment of market fees made under Section 12-B(5) is not covered under Section 12(1). The High Court overlooked the explanation appended to Section 12-A which clearly provides that for the purposes of Sections 12-A to 12-G, `market fees' shall mean fees levied under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Section 12-B and the explanation appended to Section 12-A taken together would leave no manner of doubt that assessment of market fees - whether it is done under Section 12- B(1) or 12-B(5) - is covered by the expression `levy fees' in Section 12(1). In other words, whether assessment of market fees payable by a trader is made under Section 12-B(1) or Section 12-B(5), the market fees so assessed means the fees levied under sub-section (1) of Section 12.The provisions being clear, non payment of the market fees assessed in the original proceedings under Section 12-B(1) or in the proceedings for re-assessment under Section 12-B(5) would mean default in payment of fee levied under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.

18.The learned Single Judge of the High Court relied upon an earlier decision of that Court in the case of B. Youdhister Vs. The Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jogipet & Anr1 wherein it was held that since there was no penal provision for the violations of Sections 12-A, 12-B and 12-C, the violators cannot be prosecuted. The view taken in the case of B. Youdhister1, in our opinion, is not correct view and does not lay down the correct law."

14. For the purpose of Section 12-A to 12-G of the Act, 'market

fee' shall mean fees levied under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the

Act. In the present case, Section 12 C (3) of the Act says if the market

fees assessed under this Act or any installment thereof is not paid by

any trader within the time specified therefor in the notice of

assessment or in the order permitting payment in installments, the

traders shall pay in addition to the amount of such market fees or

installment, interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum of such

amount from the date when the market fees becomes due. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Agricultural Market Committee, Andhra

Pradesh and Others vs. M.K. Exports, Andhra Pradesh and Others (2

supra), held that the view taken in B. Youdhister vs The Secretary,