State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Narsingh Agricultural ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 672 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.T. Kharche, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendant State of Maharashtra has filed this second appeal against the judgment dated 15-3-1988 and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9/1982, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 30-4-1981 and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 24/1973, whereby the appellant-defendant No. 1 has been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 20,985.66 to the respondent-plaintiff with future interest.

2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :

Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. It is registered limited company and owned agricultural land at village Chatsawli. In the agricultural Session 1972-73, cotton crop of varieties L-147 and MCU-5 were sown in that field. By virtue of the provisions of Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 (for short, the Act), the agriculturist who grows cotton, are required to sell their cotton mandatorily to the defendants. On 5-2-1973, the plaintiff had tendered 18 quintals of cotton of 147 variety @250/- per quintal and the amount due was Rs. 4,500/-. On the same day the plaintiff also tendered 20-85 quintals of raw cotton with MCU-5 cotton variety @ Rs. 320/- per quintal, total worth Rs. 6,672/-. Again on 9-2-1973, cotton of I. 147 variety was tendered and the amount due was Rs. 8,052.50. The cotton was weighed for which the receipts Exh.78 and Exh.81 were issued acknowledging the receipt of the cotton. The notice as served on the defendants calling upon them to pay the total amount due which was remained unpaid, but in vain, and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the price of the cotton sold to the defendants.

3. The defendant No. 1 contended that the receipts-Exh.78 and Exh.81 which are said to have been proved through the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, are not signed according to the rules by the Graders and the other officers of respondent No. 2 and those receipts are fraudulent and not authenticated and as such these receipts are fraudulently obtained, and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, negatived the claim of the defendants and decreed the suit and directed defendant No. 1 to pay the price of the cotton as mentioned above. Defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, carried appeal to the District Court. The learned Additional District Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence and on considering the law position, dismissed the appeal. This judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is under challenge in this second appeal.

5. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for defendant No. 1 contended that on the strength of the receipts Exh.78 and Exh.81, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the price of the cotton which is said to have been tendered at the factory of defendant No. 3. He contended that defendant No. 3 is not authorised agent appointed by defendant No. 1 and as per Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1972; all kapas tendered at any collection centre by any tenderer shall be graded by a grader and such other officers as may be appointed by the State Government for that purpose; provided that, where the State Government has appointed an agent for the whole State or any specified area thereof then, such grading may be made by any grader appointed by such agent.

6. Mr. Deshpande contended that as per Rule 7, the market Committee has to supervise the grading operation under the aforesaid rules in the same manner as it supervises the grading of agricultural produce under any rules made by the State Government under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, or any bye-laws made by it, under the Act. Mr. Deshpande further contended that the result of grading has to be recorded in the prescribed form in Form II under Rule 12 after any variety of kapas tendered at a collection centre has been graded in the manner provided in the foregoing rule, the grader shall record the result of the grading in Part II of the Weighment-cum-Grading Slip, in Form, 1, and shall sign such slip in token of having graded the kapas.

7. Mr. Deshpande contended that both the Courts below have recorded the findings that the receipts were not issued in accordance with the Rules, and therefore, they have committed an error of law in granting decree for the price of cotton which is said to have been tendered.

8. Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the receipts have been fraudulently obtained and in such circumstances, the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had tendered the cotton, is not liable to be disturbed for want of any evidence to show that the receipts were fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. In support of these submissions, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhavdas, 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 853.

9. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. No doubt, the business of defendant No. 1 in procurement of the cotton has to be transacted in accordance with the Rules 6, 7 and 12 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Grading and Marking) Rules, 1972. It is necessary to reproduce those Rules which are as under :

6. Grading by whom to be made. -- All kapas tendered at any collection centre by any tenderer shall be graded by a grader and such other officers as may be appointed by the State Government for that purpose; Provided that, where the State Government has appointed an agent for the whole State or any specified area thereof then, such grading may be made by any grader appointed by such agent.

7. Market Committee to supervise Grading Operations. -- The market Committee concerned shall supervise the grading operation under these rules in the same manner as it supervises the grading of agricultural produce under any rules made by the State Government under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, or any bye-laws made by it, under the Act.

12. Result of Grading to be recorded, etc. -- (1) After any variety of kapas tendered at a collection centre has been graded in the manner provided in the foregoing rules. The grader shall record the result of the grading in Part II of the Weighment-cum-Grading Slip, in Form I, and shall sign such slip in token of having graded the kapas. The grader shall then record such result in the Grading Register in Form II.

(2) After the Weighment-cum-Grading Slip is duly filled in, it shall be handed over to the tenderer who shall be required to take the same to the weighman licensed by the market committee for the purpose of weighment of the kapas.

(3) The Weighment-cum-Grading Slip is duly filled in, quadruplicate and one copy thereof shall be supplied to the tenderer, another to the Market Committee concerned, the third copy shall be given to the agent or any person authorised by him and the last copy shall be retained by the grader.

10. In the present case, it is not disputed that, both the Courts below have observed that the receipts which were issued to the plaintiff, did not bear the signatures of other officers, as is required by the law, and those are not signed by the other grader respondent No. 2. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that simply because of the receipts are not signed by the Grader, it did not follow that the receipts were fraudulently obtained and are not authenticated receipts. The appellate Courts observed that according to the procedure the signatures of all the three persons are required on grading and weighment slips but to show that they are fraudulently obtained by the respondent No. 1, there is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses who have admittedly committed irregularities in performing their duties. The contention of the defendant that receipts were fraudulently obtained is not supported by any evidence and mere irregularities committed by the employees of the agents of the defendants cannot give support to the contentions that the said slips cum receipts were fraudulently obtained. Moreover, the plaintiff is a registered limited company and it is not shown as to who was interested in committing the fraud or obtaining fraudulent receipts from the defendants in relation to tendering of cotton. Both the Courts below have rightly recorded the findings of fact that there is no evidence to show that the receipts were fraudulently obtained and there is no reason for this Court to interfere into the findings of fact especially recorded by the appellate Court which is a final Court for fact findings.

11. There is voluminous evidence on record to show that the cotton was not only tendered at the collection centre but it was also graded and the weighment was also recorded in the register maintained at the procurement centre and in such situation, it is not possible to accept that defendant No. 1 is not liable to pay the price of cotton sold to defendants No. 2 and 3 who were acting as sub-agent of defendant No. 1.

12. This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhavdas (cited supra) has specifically held that; "The defendants did not tender any evidence to show that the receipt (Exh. 65) has been fraudulently obtained and in such circumstances, the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had tendered the cotton to the defendants, is not liable to be disturbed for want of any evidence to show that the receipts were fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff."

13. In such a situation, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of Mr. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 has been absolved from the liability to pay the price of cotton sold as per the receipts Exh.71 and Exh.81 which have not been issued in accordance with the Rules by the officers of the Procurement Centre. In the result, this Court does not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. No case has been made out for interference in the impugned judgment and decree and thus the appeal stands dismissed.