PATEL PRAVINCHNADRA VADILAL Vs. PATEL AMBARAM JIVRAMBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short), the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned judgement and order of acquittal dated 30th December, 1995 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Mehsana in Criminal Case No.1340 of 1992.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarised are that the complainant -Pravinchandra Vadilal is the inspector of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana which is engaged in the trading business of agricultural produces. It is alleged that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee issues licenses to the traders and the traders, who are doing the business of trading of agricultural produces in the market yard/area, are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the license. It is alleged that as per the terms and conditions of the license, the trader is required to submit the books of accounts, including the bills for purchase and sales of the agricultural produces. Therefore, by the notice dated 20th February, 1992, the complainant had called upon the respondents to produce the books of accounts in the office of the Market Committee on 13th February, 1992, which the respondents - original accused have failed to produce. Therefore, the complainant, as an Inspector of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana has lodged the complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 5 for non -compliance of the terms and conditions of the license and thereby, committed the offence under Section 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short) as well as Section 36(ii) of the Act, read with Rules 59(1) and 59(3) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short). Therefore, the complainant lodged the aforesaid complaint for the alleged offences before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, who passed the order to register the offence against the accused persons by the order dated 26th March, 1992. The learned Magistrate recorded the plea of the accused persons, who claimed to be tried for the offence.

(3.) MS . Jirga Jhaveri, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the learned Court below has erred in not appreciating that the complainant was authorised by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to issue notice for breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. She also submitted that the learned Magistrate has erred in appreciating that the books of accounts have not been produced. She referred to Rule 59 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1965 ('the Rules' for short) and submitted that Rule 59 has been violated. Referring to Rule 59(1), she emphasised that all traders, general commission agents and brokers are required to submit for examination in the office of the market committee the books of accounts, ledger, etc. It was submitted that the notice was issued by the complainant, which the respondents -original accused have failed to comply with. She also referred to Rule 59(3) which reads as under: