MYSORE FRUIT PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. FRUITS AND VEGITABLE SPL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed assailing the order passed by the 7th Addl. C. M. M. , bangalore City in CC No. 16908/2000 (PCR no. 195/2000) by order dt. 23-9-2000 and also the order passed by the Prl. City S. J. , bangalore City in Cri. R. P. 60/2001 confirming the order of the C. M. M. , by his order dt. 13-7-2001.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the 1st petitioners is a Public Ltd. Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1955. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the employees of the 1st petitioner company being the General Manager and the Export officer respectively, wherein the said company is engaged in processing food products and as such it falls within the definition trader as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the act for short ). On inspection, on 7-8-1999 the officials of the said establishment noticed certain violations of the provisions of the Act and Regulations, wherein the said company was said to be processing mangoes and tomatoes into pulp and exporting tp foreign countries and the said produce is riotified as agricultural produce and the accused purchased the notified agricultural produce within the market area of the complainant without there being a licence and also without paying the 1% of the process fee on the purchases made which comes to the tune of Rs. 11,21,492/ -. Hence the private complaint for violation of the provisions of Sections 114, 117 and 122 of the said Act for violation of Secs. 8, 65 (2) and 66 of the act which are punishable under Ss. 114, 116, 117, 117-Aand 122 of the Act. A demand notice has been issued to remit the said amount. In that regard, ultimately the cheque came to be issued by the petitioners and after a justing the initial amount paid, for non-payment of the remaining amount in spite of issuance of of legal notice, the authority referred the matter to the complainant authority to take suitable legal action in that regard. The accused compounded the offence on 30-6-2000 and issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- which was dishonoured and later the complainant authority passed a resolution authorising the complainant to file a complaint to take legal action on the said complaint; cognizance has. been taken and issued process. The same has been assailed before the revision Court. The revision Court confirmed the said offence. Hence this petition has been filed on; several grounds.

(3.) THE main ground of attack is that the complaint is filed beyond a period of one year and the prescribed punishment is only fine or else upto simple imprisonment for six months also assailed regarding taking cognizance against the petitioners 2 and 3 stating that they are only employees and cognizance should have been taken against the directors and one more aspect is regarding the fact that the Magistrate has not indicated as to what is the offence for which conizance is taken and also on the ground that the Secretary has filed the complaint without there being proper authorisation which is not maintainable.