STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals involve identical issues and therefore are taken up for disposal together. The judgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2002 was based on the judgment which is the subject-matter of challenge in Crl. A. No.667 of 1999.

(2.) The background facts, so far as Crl. A. No. 667 of 1999 is concerned, are as follows:

(3.) The respondent had obtained licence No.55 as trader and commission agent A class from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Samity). On 16-12-1989 records of the respondents were inspected. It was found that the declaration forms issued were not in terms of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (in short the Rules) as they did not contain actual details and disclosed evasion of payment of market duty amounting to Rs.87,639.90/-. A notice was served on 9-1-1990 on the respondents to deposit the aforesaid amount. On 11-4-1990 another notice was served, when there was no response to the first notice. Since there was no response to the second notice also a complaint being No.115 of 1990 on 16-6-1990 was filed before the appropriate Court for commission of offence in not complying with the requirements of Section 17 of the Act, thereby attracting action under Section 28 of the Act. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3 at Jodhpur tried the case and found the respondents guilty of alleged offence of evasion of mandi fee and sentenced the respondent No.1 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Further direction was given to the respondents to deposit the evaded amount of Rs.87,639.90/- in Court. The respondent questioned legality of the said judgment in Crl. A. No. 46 of 1995. The appeal was heard and disposed of by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act cases, Jodhpur. In the appeal only the State of Rajasthan was impleaded as a party and not the Samity. However the appellate Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. However, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The respondents filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.387 of 1995 and questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by the Courts below. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction recorded by the Courts below, and ordered refund of the recovered amount by judgment dated 13-1-1998. The whole basis of the judgment revolves round the judgment of the Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani and Ors. vs. Indian Wood Products Ltd. and Anr. (1996) 3 SCC 321 : 1996 (2) Supreme 726). It was held by the High Court, purportedly following the decision of this Court that the liability to pay the market fee was that of the purchaser and the present respondents had no liability to pay the market fee.