Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,Pali vs M/S Hasti Mal And Anr on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 349/1994
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pali
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Hasti Mal And Anr.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. MC Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogendra Singh Chouhan for
Mr. Manish Shishoia, Sr. Advocate
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
24/08/2022
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378
Cr.P.C. by the appellant-Samiti praying for quashing and setting
aside of the judgment, dated 05.03.1994, passed by C.J.M. Pali in
Cr. Complaint Case No. 820/1990 whereby the respondents were
acquitted for the offences under the Sections 4, 36 (2) (3) and
28(1) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961
("the Act of 1961") read with the Agricultural Produce Marketing
Rules, 1963. ("the Rules of 1963")
2. The matter pertains to the year 1990 and the appeal has
been pending since the year 1994.
3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the appellant, are that the appellant-Samiti
filed a complaint against the respondents herein, for breach of
Sections 17 & 4 of the Act of 1961. The main averment therein
was that the respondents were conducting business outside the
market yard, and thereby were acting against the provisions of
the Act of 1961, and were avoiding payment of the market fee as
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:43:10 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-349/1994]
was payable by them to the Samiti. And that, the respondents did
not have a valid license to conduct business under the Act of
1961, in the area of Sarvodaya Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Samiti submits that the
learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents of all
the charges levelled against them, and did not appreciate the fact
that although the respondents had the requisite license to operate
their wholesale business and act as a broker, but the same was
only permissible to them only within the limits of the market yard,
in their Shops, bearing Nos. 14 and 25, whereas in contravention
thereof, they were conducting their business outside the limits of
the market yard, so as to avoid payment of the requisite fee to the
Samiti.
4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court
has wrongly held that non-production of witnesses, namely
Ramswaroop and Lalkhan, and of the bills and registers adversely
affected the case of the prosecution. And that, the case against
the respondents is proved through the testimonies of P.W. 1
Shanti Swaroop and P.W. 2 Madanlal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the appellant, submits that the learned Court below
has rightly held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case
against the respondents, owing to lack of sufficient evidence, and
thus, the respondents were rightly acquitted of all the charges
levelled against them. And that, the learned Court below has
rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after looking
into the overall facts and circumstances and the evidences placed
on the record before it.
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:43:10 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-349/1994]
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
7. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment of acquittal after taking into due
consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and
the evidences placed on the record before it. In arriving at this
conclusion, this Court derives strength from the fact that the
prosecution was unable to fully substantiate the averments made
against the respondents, through evidence. And that, the Fard
Nirakshan did not bear the signatures of the respondents, nor of
any independent witnesses(motbirs), but only that of the
supervisor and the Sacheev of the appellant-Samiti; nor is there
any record of the alleged sacks of food grain, which allegedly
belonged to the respondents, to prove the ownership of the same.
8. This Court further observes that the scope of interference of
an appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against a
judgment of acquittal, is limited, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, and the present case does not
fall within the parameters laid down in Chandrappa (supra).
9. This Court, in light of the above discussion, finds that the
impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and
therefore, does not merit any interference by this Court.
10. The appeal fails, and is hereby dismissed. All pending
applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
49-/Skant//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
