M D NAYAK Vs. HIRA RICE MILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of eleven Criminal Revision Applications filed by the original complainant are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31-12-1991 rendered in as many Criminal cases by the learned J.M.F.C. Gandevi wherein Opponent - M/s. Hira Rice Mill and two others who came to be tried for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 6 and 8 read with Section 36 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1963 (for short the Act) and Rules 58 and 59 (for short Rules) made thereunder on their pleading guilty were convicted for the same and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 150/- and in default to undergo SI for 15 days.

(2.) Petitioner before this Court is Mr. M.D. Nayak who is Secretary of Agricultural Produce Market Committee Bilimora while Opponent No. 1 - Messrs. Hira Rice Mill is a Partnership firm of which Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners. This firm is running a Rice Mill in their Mill Compound which is within the market area and carries on the business of purchasing paddy and rice from the agriculturists and in turn selling the same to consumers under licence. It is the case of the petitioner that Opponents-accused are carrying on the said business right from the year 1978 onwards upto 1986. Not only that it is further the case of petitioner that after 1 the rate of market cess fee was increased to 0.80 paise on the amount of Rs. 100/- and thereafter it is alleged that the opponent - Firm did not pay the market cess fee after 1985 as a result the appropriate proceedings under the Act and the Rules for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 1 250 per year were taken up against the opponent-accused. Not only that but the opponents being Traders are also required to maintain regular Account-books Bill-books etc. compulsorily and non-maintenance of the same is considered to be the breach of condition of the licence. It is further the case of petitioner that the opponents continued their business without licence as a result of which they were served with a notice by the Market Committee on 8-7-1989 and despite this the accused did not care to obtain the licence and continued to sale the agricultural products and thereby contravened the provisions of Sections 6 and 8 punishable under Section 36 of the Act and rules 58 and 59 of the Rules. It is also alleged in the complaint that because the opponents have not maintained the books of account bill books they have contravened the provisions contained in rules 58 and 59 of the Rules. On the basis of these facts the complainant filed eleven separate criminal cases against the respondent-accused herein before the learned J.M.F.C. Gandevi wherein on the accused pleading guilty they came to be convicted for the same and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 150 each giving rise to the present group of Criminal Revision Application for enhancement of sentence.

(3.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is true that on the accused pleading guilty they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 150/- only. It is also true that the maximum fine provided under the Act is Rs. 500 and in that view of the matter fine of Rs. 150 cannot be said to be unduly lenient calling for any interference by way of enhancement of the same. But unfortunately the learned Magistrate while accepting the plea of guilty and imposing fine of Rs. 150/- only has failed to take into account certain glaring facts such as: (i) the accused persons who were tried for the alleged offence were trading continuously in the Market area since the year 1978 and therefore they very well knew that they cannot trade without obtaining prior licence and maintaining the books of account bill books etc. in contravention of Sections 6 and 8 of the Act and the Rules 58 and 59 of the Rules made thereunder. In this view of the matter the default committed by the accused persons was not an inadvertent or accidental one rather to put it effectively it was deliberate and intended one; (ii) that the object underlying the Act and the Rules made thereunder viz. that to carry on the business in the Market area without licence and not to maintain record is something very serious sabotaging the very root/foundation of the object underlying the Special Act. (iii) that as pointed out by Mr. A.D. Shah the learned advocate for the petitioner that for the earlier years the market cess fees was determined at Rs. 25 0 and thus prima facie it is clear that to circumvent paying of Market Cess Fees the opponent did not obtain the licence. All these factors taken together makes the offences quite aggrevated one and not that simple as it outwardly appears to be when the accused pleaded guilty. Had indeed the learned Magistrate been careful enough to appreciate these circumstances in proper perspective he would have surely not taken lighter view by imposing a fine of Rs. 150/- only. Whenever the trial court is befaced with the plea of guilty it must take into consideration the overall gravity and seriousness of the offence and that he should not impose lighter sentence merely because the accused pleaded guilty as it has been done in the instant case. It may be pointed out that taking into consideration the noble object underlying the Act and the Rules made thereunder to protect the interest of the unwarry illiterate poor rustic agriculturists at the hands of the scheming unscrupulous traders to take a lenient view of the matter would be indirectly putting premium over the wrong committed by the accused. Not only that but by imposing a lighter sentence one may in all probabilities be accused of indirectly becoming a party to the fraud and conspiracy against the Statute. As a matter of fact before accepting the plea of guilty and thereafter awarding the sentence the respondent ought to have been given directions to produce books of account and returns before the Market Committee so as to enable it to determine the proper Market Cess Fess. 3.1 In view of the aforesaid directions since the impugned order of sentence is on face of it unduly lenient the same deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of fine from Rs. 150/- to Rs.300/-; in each case separately.