Karnataka High Court
Shankar Trading Co vs Agricultural Produce Marketing ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1231 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1268 OF 2016
IN CRL.RP No. 1231/2016
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR TRADING CO.,
6TH MAIN, APMC YARD
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 561202
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
S ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
by DEVIKA M
...PETITIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 561202
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2016
PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKURU IN
CRL.A.NO.58/2015 AND ETC.
IN CRL.RP NO. 1268/2016
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR TRADING CO
6TH MAIN, APMC YARD
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-561202
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
S ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-561202
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
09.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEAVE VI ADDL. DIST.
AND S.J., AT TUMKURU IN CRL.A.NO.10/2016 AND
ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Crl.R.P. Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016.
2. The Crl.R.P.Nos.1231/2016 is arising out of
allowing Crl.A.No.58/2015 wherein an order of the Trial
Court passed in C.C.No.2073/2007 dated 10.08.2015 was
confirmed in respect of the offence punishable under
Section 65 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short 'the said Act')
wherein the Trial Court imposed the fine of Rs.3,000/- and
the First Appellate Court enhanced the same to
Rs.11,205/- and the same is in respect of shortage of
commodity when inspection was conducted by the
respondent on 30.11.2006. The revision petitioner in
Crl.R.P.No.1268/2016 also filed an appeal in
Crl.A.No.10/2016 challenging the order passed in
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
C.C.No.2073/2007 and the said appeal was dismissed.
Hence, these revision petitions i.e., Crl.R.P.Nos.1231/2016
and 1268/2016 are filed before this Court.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner in the said cases is that both the Courts
have not justified in holding that the petitioner has
committed an offence punishable for the maximum
punishment as contend under Section 114, 117(A) of the
said Act and the said order has been passed on
assumption and presumption. Section 65 and 66 of the Act
is based on the conjecture holding that the petitioner is
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 65 and 66
of the said Act and there is no evidence to substantiate the
charge leveled against the petitioner and there is complete
misleading of both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record by both the Courts.
4. The counsel for the respondent has not
disputed Ex.D1 to D5 which are the receipts for payment
of market fee. Both the Courts comes to the conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
that total payment of market fee is Rs.5,265/- out of
Rs.9,000/- and held that difference amount is Rs.3,735/-
which is due amount and 3 times of said amount is
Rs.11,205/-. Absolutely there is no logic behind passing
such an order when the petitioner has shown stock of
1929 bags in the stock register book and the petitioner
liable to pay market fee as per the stock shown in the
register which has to be paid as and when sold. Even spot
inspection conducted is not proved and so called drawing
of mahazar is not proved and hence, the order passed by
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court requires
to be set aside.
5. The counsel for the respondent would
vehemently contend that no dispute with regard to the
fact that on 13.11.2006 inspection was conducted and
there was shortage of 374 bags. Having taken note of
shortage of bags, proceedings has been initiated stating
that they have evaded the payment of market fee of
Rs.27,000/- and also the petitioner has not disputes the
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
fact that there was a shortage of 374 bags. Taking note of
the factual aspects of the case, both the Courts considered
Section 65 of the said Act and also Sections 114, 116,
117(A) of the said Act and rightly come to the conclusion
that the petitioner committed an error. However, the Trial
Court only imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- instead of imposing
three times more than what was due. The counsel also
contends that the First Appellate Court committed an error
in only enhancing the amount to Rs.11,205/- when the
Trial Court committed an error in imposing the fine of
Rs.3,000/- which ought to have made as three times
penalty on the amount which was due.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
available on record, it is the specific case of the
respondent that when inspection was conducted i.e., on
13.11.2006, there was a shortage of 374 bags and ought
to have been paid amount on the market value on the said
bags and though the Trial Court comes to the conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
that offence under Section 65 of the said Act is committed,
only imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- and same has been
enhanced to Rs.11,205/- by the First Appellate Court. But
the fact that 374 bags were deficit when inspection was
conducted and the same is not disputed seriously by the
petitioner herein. When inspection was conducted and
found shortage of bags and punishment prescribed under
Section 114 of the said Act for commission of offence
punishable under Section 65 of the said Act and proviso
also very clear that three times the amount of market fee
on any other amount due which may extend and same
ought to have been taken note of by the Trial Court but
only imposed Rs.3,000/- in respect of offence punishable
under Section 65 of the said Act and same has been
enhanced by the First Appellate Court taking into note of
the fact that ought to have been enhanced the same and
hence enhanced to Rs.11,205/-. Having considered the
reasons and particular provision of Section 65 as well as
Section 114 of the said Act, I do not find any error
committed by the First Appellate Court in reversing the
NC: 2025:KHC:4308
same by allowing Crl.A.no..58/2015 and dismissing the
appeal filed by the petitioner herein in Crl.A.No.10/2016
considering the material available on record. When such
being the case, I do not find any ground to allow the
revision petition Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016 when not
found any perversity in the finding and the First Appellate
Court while considering the material available on record
and modified the judgment of the Trial Court enhancing
the fine amount to Rs.11,205/- as against Rs.3,000/- in
respect of Section 65 of the said Act is concerned and in
respect of Section 66 of the said Act having imposed the
fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is concerned, the same is
confirmed. When such being the case, no grounds are
made out to allow the above revision petitions. Hence,
Crl.R.P. Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
