LADDER SIDDABASAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No.182/83 on the file of the J.M.F.C Navalgund, and he will be hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'. On 10-5-82 at Nargund the accused was found transporting and possessing 23 gunny bags of admixtured Jayalaxmi (DCH. 32 cotton which is prohibited in Nargund area. So, the cotton supervisor, Nargund, seized the said cotton seeds under a mahazar and reported the seizure to the C.J.M. Dharwar on 12-5-1982. He sent one portion of the sample to the cotton breeder, Dharwad, as per the provisions of the Mysore Cotton Control Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for testing. The cotton breeder, Dharwar, after testing, reported that the seeds were admixtured with Jayalaxmi (DCH.32). Thereafter, the complainant obtained sanction from the Director of Agriculture to prosecute the accused. He received the sanction and authorisation dt.24-2-83. Thereafter on 18-3-83 the complainant filed the complaint in the Court below against the accused for an offence under S. 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Cotton Transport (Karnataka) Rules 1963. He also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the complaint stating that the period of six months had elapsed in obtaining test report from the cotton breeder, Dharwar and in obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused as required under section 12 of the Act. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate condoned the delay and took congnizance of the offence and when the accused appeared before him the accusation for the said offence was put to him. The accused pleaded guilty to the said accusation. Accepting his plea, the learned Magistrate convicted him on both counts and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.75/- on each count or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days on each count. Hence, this revision petition by the accused.

(2.) Mr. S.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Magistrate ought to have issued notice to the accused before taking cognizance of the offence and ought to have heard him on the question whether the delay should be condoned or not and as he has not done so, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are vitiated.

(3.) Mr. Koti, learned High Court Government Pleader, urged that as the accused has pleaded guilty he is deemed to have waived his right of contesting the decision of the learned Magistrate on the question of condonation of delay.