Sri. N. N. Anil Kumar vs Agricultural Produce Market ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 975 Kant

                          -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.503 OF 2017
                   C/W
   WRIT PETITION NO.23420 OF 2017 (APMC)

IN CRL.R.P. NO.503/2017

BETWEEN

SRI. N. N. ANIL KUMAR
S/O LATE NEELAKANTARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PROP M/S. N.R.RICE MILL,
M.M.ROAD, BANNUR TOWN,
BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571101.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B R SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
T.NARASIPURA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
T.NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571124
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI T SWAROOP, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., MYSURU IN

CRL.A.NO.179/2014 AND IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T. NARASIPURA IN C.C.NO.674/2007 AND ETC.

IN W.P. NO.23420/2017

BETWEEN

N N ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE NEELAKANTARADHYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PROP: MS. N.R.RICE MILL M.M.ROAD, BANNUR TOWN, BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER (BY SRI B R SATENAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 11TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING LEGAL ENFORCEMENT CELL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO.16, 11TH RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE T.NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT 570001.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI T SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DTD.28.5.2004 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The writ petition and the Criminal Revision Petition are

taken up and heard together since the cause of action in both

the cases are one and the same and the judgment rendered

by the learned Magistrate, which is sought to be assailed in

the Criminal Revision Petition arises out of the transaction

which is also the subject matter of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. N.R. Rice Mill,

situated at Bannuru Town, T.Narasipura Taluk. It is the

contention of the petitioner that he is a customary miller who

hulls the paddy of customers and collects hulling charges. It is

the specific contention of the petitioner that he has not a

trader and he is not dealing with paddy, as alleged by the

respondent-authorities. In fact, it is also the contention of the

petitioner that the Rice Mill premises was in fact leased to one

M/s. Afridi Traders and during the relevant point of time, it

was M/s. Afridi Traders, who were running the Rice Mill and

not the petitioner. On the other hand, it is the contention of

the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is a trader and

in the guise of hulling the paddy, he has transported rice from

his industry to the neighboring states between 01.04.2002 to

31.03.2003. It is alleged that to that effect the petitioner

herein had maintained Transport Permit Book supplied by the

respondent-authorities. It is therefore contended by the

respondent that on the basis of the rice transported by the

petitioner, the petitioner is liable to pay market fee in a sum

of Rs.1,10,050/- along with penalty of Rs.3,30,050/-.

3. Learned Counsel Sri. B.R.Satenalli appearing for the

petitioner submits that the prosecution launched against the

petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka

Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development)

Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short).

Learned Counsel contends that the Enforcement Cell has no

authority to pass best judgment assessment of market fee in

terms of Section 83A and such power is vested a only with the

market committee. Moreover, it is submitted that the

Enforcement Cell is also not entitled to launch a prosecution

since such a power is not vested with the Enforcement Cell

under Section 58(4-A) of the Act. The learned Counsel

submits that a reading of the impugned judgment dated

31.07.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C.,

shows that except for placing reliance on the electricity bill, no

other document was produced by the respondents to show

that the petitioner has transported rice as alleged in the

complaint. Learned Counsel submits that there are any

number of decisions of this Court including the case of Sri. K.

M. Chandrashekar Vs. The State of Karnataka, reported in

ILR 1985 KAR 2401, wherein it was held that electrical energy

supplied through the meter installed at the mill premises is

not consumed only for operating the mills and conclusion

arrive at on the basis of electricity consumption cannot be

sustained. The learned Counsel further draws the attention of

this Court to Section 132(2) of the Act stating that the said

provision would provide that whenever a question arises as to

whether a sum is due to the market committee or the Board

within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 132, it shall

be referred to the Director of Agricultural Marketing or an

officer subordinate to him, authorised by him, and the Director

of Agricultural Marketing or the authorised officer shall after

making such enquiry as he deems fit, and after giving to the

person from whom the sum is alleged to be due an

opportunity of being heard, decide the question. Learned

Counsel therefore submits that when the respondent-

authorities have failed to substantiate their contention that the

petitioner has transported rice and they have failed to prove

by the production of cogent evidence as to quantity of rice

said to have been transported by the petitioner, the matter

requires reconsideration in terms of Section 132(2) of the Act.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would

submit that transport of rice is of the period 01.04.2002 to

31.03.2003 and it may be difficult for the respondents at this

stage to produce any other documents to substantiate their

contentions.

5. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing

the petition papers, this Court finds that the judgment

rendered by the learned Magistrate is not supported by any

cogent evidence. It could be seen from the list of documents

exhibited on behalf of the complainant that other than two

notices, a letter, copy of notification and the Electricity

Reading Book, no other document has been placed on record.

It is pertinent to notice that the learned Magistrate has

observed in the judgment that the petitioner had maintained

Transport Permit Book supplied by the respondent-authorities.

In that case, it was the bounded duty of the authorities to

produce the Transport Permit Book in order to substantiate

their contentions.

6. Nevertheless, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case and on over all consideration of the

same, this Court is of the considered opinion that unless and

until the respondent-authorities are able to prove by

production of cogent evidence, the quantity of rice said to

have been transported by the petitioner, it cannot be held the

petitioner guilty. Further, the best judgment assessment of

the market fee also depends upon the factual ascertainment of

the rice said to have been transported by the petitioner. As

rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in

terms of Section 132(2) of the Act, the Director of Agricultural

Marketing or any other officer authorised by the Director is

required to assess the market fee payable and the best

judgment assessment could also be passed only by such

officer.

7. Consequently, the writ petition and the Criminal

Revision Petition succeed in part. The impugned judgment

dated 31.07.2014, in C.C.No.674/2007, is hereby quashed

and set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Director of

Agricultural Marketing to pass an order in terms of Section

132(2) of the Act after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. The Director is also empowered to authorize any

other officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of Section 132(2)

of the Act.

8. Needless to observe that the entire exercise shall be

completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this order.

It is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

DL