Karnataka High Court
The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs B.S.Ravindrakumar on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
CRL.A No. 259 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
MARKET COMMITTEE
T. NARASIPURA - 571124
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SMT. A. SOWBHAGYA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADV.)
AND:
B. S. RAVINDRAKUMAR
PROPRIETOR OF:
M/S GMS RICE MILL,
SRP ROAD, BANNUR ROAD,
T. NARASIPURA - 571124.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV.)
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:11.12.2014 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SR. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, TIRUMAKUDALU
NARASIPURA (T.NARASIPURA), IN C.C.NO.466/10 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 114 & 116 OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
(REGULATION) COMMITTEE ACT 1966.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
CRL.A No. 259 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Appellant in this appeal is assailing the judgment dated
11th December 2014 passed in CC No.466 of 2010 by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T Narsipura (for short hereinafter
referred to as "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. The complainant filed complaint against accused
and section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that
the accused has violated sections 65(2A), 65A of the Karnataka
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development)
Act, 1966 (for short "KAPM (R&D) Act") and has committed
offence punishable under sections 114 and 116 of the KAPM
(R&D) Act.
4. After taking cognizance, case of registered in CC
No.466 of 2010. Summons was issued, in response to
summons accused appeared before the court and enlarged on
bail. The substance of accusation was recorded. The same was
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
read over and explained to the accused, accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove the guilt of the accused, Secretary of
Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee was examined as
PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2. Six documents
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6. On closure of complainant
side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of
Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied the
evidence of complainant witnesses and filed written statement
about his say on the case. In the written statement, he had
explained that he had returned the rice to farmers after hulling
and he had not committed any offence as alleged in the
complaint. The accused has not led any defence evidence.
Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court
acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section
114 and 116 of KAPM (R&D) Act. Further, the trial court
passed the order to register a separate Criminal Misc. case
against the complaint under section 250 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and issue summons to appear before the court on
20th February 2015 and show cause why he should not be
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
directed to pay compensation to the accused for instituting a
complaint without reasonable cause. Being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal and the observation made by the trial
court, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
6. Sri Swaroop T, learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant/complainant, would submit that though appeal is filed
against the judgment of acquittal, he would not press the
same, but, he is questioning only as to the direction given by
the trial court to register a separate Criminal Misc. case against
the complainant under section 250 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and to issue notice to appear before the court. He
would further submit that the trial court has arrived at a wrong
conclusion that the accused being the Rice Mill owner has not
obtained license from the Marketing Committee, and also there
is no provision under KAPM (R&D) Act to issue license to a Rice
Mill owner and further the trial Court has arrived at the wrong
conclusion that even if he transported rice to other states, he is
not liable to pay the market fee as he is not a trader under the
KAPM (R&D) Act and these wrong conclusions compelled the
trial court to order to register a criminal miscellaneous case
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
against the complainant under section 250 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to pay compensation to the accused. Such an action
of the trial court was absolutely uncalled for and the
observation and action instituted against the complainant would
only demoralize the complainant from discharging his duties,
honestly and faithfully under the KAPM (R&D) Act. Hence, he
prays to struck down the said observation made by the trial
court. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, Sri Nataraju, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent would submit that this court may
pass suitable/appropriate orders considering the submission of
the appellant counsel.
8. I have examined the materials placed before me.
The trial court has passed the judgment of acquittal. The order
portion reads as under:
"Order
The accused is by acquitted u/sec.255(2)
OffCr.P.C. For the offence punishable under section
114 and 116 of agricultural produce marketing (
Regulation) Committee act 1966.
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
Bail Bond executed by the accused and his
surety stand cancelled.
Office is directed to register a separate C.Misc.
against the complainant under section 250 Cr.P.C.
and issue summons to appear before the court on
20.20.2015 and show cause why he should not be
directed to pay compensation to the accused for
instituting a complaint without reasonable cause."
9. It is relevant to mention here as provisions of
section 141 of KAPM (R&D) Act. The same reads as under:
"141. Protection to persons acting in good faith.- No suit,
prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted
against any person for anything one or intended to be
done in good faith under this Act, or the rules, regulations
or the bye-laws."
10. In the case on hand, complaint filed by N Lingaraj
Urs, APMC, T Narsipura on 27th February 2004. That on 21st
July 2012, Boranna, the then Secretary of APMC was examined
as PW1. At the time of adducing the evidence, the age of PW1
was shown as 57 years. Now he is retired from service. Hence,
no purpose will be served in issuing show-cause notice to the
present Secretary of T.Narasipura APMC. Apart from this, the
trial court has not assigned any reasons as to whether the
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
complainant has filed his complaint in good faith or not.
Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and also
keeping in mind, the provisions of section 141 of KAPM (R&D)
Act, it is just proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is partly allowed;
ii. Judgment of acquittal dated 11th December
2014 passed in CC No.466 of 2010 by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, T Narsipura, is
confirmed.
iii. The order passed by the trial court regarding
issuance of direction "to register criminal
miscellaneous against the complainant under
section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure and
issue summons to appear before the court on
20th February 2015 and show cause why he
should not be directed to pay compensation to
NC: 2025:KHC:46619
HC-KAR
the accused for instituting a complaint without
reasonable cause", is set aside.
iv. Registry to send the coy of this judgment along
with Trial Court records to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
