MARKETING SUPERINTENDENT Vs. C MURUGANANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein are the accused in S.T.C.No.561 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, and a complaint was filed against them by the Marketing Superintendent, Erode Market Committee, Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce (Regulation), Agricultural Department, Kodumudi, for contravening the provision of Section 24(1) and 24(5) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and punishable under Section 48 of the Act. The learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused on the ground that at the time of filing the complaint, a Special Order required as per Section 58(2) of the Act was not obtained by the complainant and the cognizance taken by the Court was illegal. Challenging the said order of acquittal, the complainant had preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that though on the date of filing the complaint the order required under Section 58(2) of the Act was not obtained by the complainant, the Commissioner had ratified the action of the complainant and passed an order to continue to conduct the case by his Order-Ex.P.9, but, the trial Court has failed to appreciate same.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the complaint was not filed by the Director, but by the Marketing Superintendent of the Regulated Market. On the date of filing the complaint, the complainant was not empowered to file the complaint by any Special Order. The Court took cognizance of the complaint on 18.06.2010. Subsequently, Ex.P.9, the Proceedings of the Agricultural Marketing Sales Commissioner was obtained on 31.08.2010. The Commissioner of Agricultural Produce Marketing passed a Special Order permitting the complainant-Munusamy, Superintendent to continue to conduct the case. In the said order itself, the case number viz., STC/561/2010 was mentioned. Therefore, it is very obvious that Ex.P.9 was brought into existence only after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case, which is violative of Section 58(2) of the Act.