HANSRAJ DEVRAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge Mehsana has made this reference recommending that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Patan in Criminal Case. No. 3373 of 1971 for the offences punishable under sec. 8 read with sec. 36(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1964 hereinafter referred to as the Act be set aside and for passing such orders as may be deemed fit.

(2.) This reference raises an important question of law regarding interpretation of sec. 36(1) of the Act- whether a trader trading in agricultural produce outside the market area is required to obtain a licence for purchasing agricultural produce in the market yard through a commission agent holding necessary licence.

(3.) In order to appreciate this point it will be worthwhile to refer to certain undisputed facts. The present applicants are the traders doing business at Harij. Admittedly they do not hold a licence either as traders or commission agents for buying or purchasing agricultural produce in the market yard of Patan. There is no dispute that the firm of Yashwantlal Mafatlal possesses a licence for doing business of commission agent and through this firm the applicants had purchased and sold certain agricultural produce in the market area in question. The managing committee therefore passed a resolution to prosecute the applicants for an offence under sec. 8 read with sec. 36(1) of the Act for operating in the market area without a licence. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Patan convicted them and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 25.00 in default S. I. for 15 days for each transaction. Against that order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Patan a revision application was preferred in the Sessions Court Mehsana which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it was not necessary for the applicants to obtain any licence as they had entered into the transactions through a commission agent who was holding a licence as required under the Act. In the opinion of the learned Judge therefore no offence was deemed to have been committed by the accused under sec. 8 read with sec. 36(1) of the Act. He has therefore made the present reference to this court.