KANNAN CHETTIAR Vs. TIRUCHIRAPALLI MARKET COMMITTEE, BY SUPERINTENDENT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI MARKET COMMITTEE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the accused is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly, in C.A. No. 51 of 1982, confirming his conviction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, there, in S.T.C. No. 404 of 1980, for an offence under S. 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act (XXIII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 474 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the present revision are briefly as follows: - -The petitioner is a licensee of the Trichy Market Committee doing business in notified agricultural products in Manapparai, a notified area under the Act. The licence was for the period from 1st February, 1973 to 31st March, 1976. According to R. 51A framed under the Act, every person who dealt with agricultural produce, had to submit weekly returns to the Market Committee constituted under the Act, of the products bought and sold by him, for the purpose of enabling the Market committee to assess the quantum of fees due to it under the Act leviable on every such person. The petitioner failed to submit returns under R. 51A for the period from 1st February, 1973 to 31st March, 1976. Thereupon the Trichy Market Committee, represented by its Superintendent, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichinopoly, for an offence under S. 25(a) and (b) of the Act, for failure to file the above returns. On trial in S.T.C. No. 488 of 1976, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 25. Revision Petition No. 4 of 1977, preferred by the petitioner against the above conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly. Even after that, the petitioner did not submit the returns for the above period. Since the default continued, a fresh prosecution was launched against the petitioner for failure to submit returns for the same period and the same was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichinopoly, in S.T.C. No. 4 of 1978 in which the petitioner was convicted for the offence under S. 25(a) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Re. 1 per day for the continued period of default from 29th December, 1976 to 8th May, 1976 (Rs. 496). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the above conviction in C.A. No. 198 of 1978 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Trichy. Despite the above two convictions, the petitioner did not submit the returns for the same period and hence, a fresh complaint was filed against the petitioner for an offence under S. 25(a) and (b) of the Act for failure to furnish returns. The Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the case as S.T.C. No. 404 of 1980 convicted the petitioner for an offence under S. 25(b) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 474 calculated at the rate specified in S. 25 for the continued period of default, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The above conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Trichy, in C.A. No. 51 of 1982. Hence, the present revision by the accused.

(3.) THIRU N. Srivatsamani appearing for the petitioner challenged the correctness of the conviction on the ground that since the petitioner had already been tried and found guilty for the same offence in the prior prosecutions, the present prosecution could not be sustained in view of the bar imposed by S. 300, Crl. P.C. The failure to submit returns under R. 51A for the period from 1st February, 1973 to 31st March, 1976 had already been the subject matter of two prosecutions and the petitioner having been tried by a competent court, and convicted could not be tried again, while the conviction was in force. Countering the above legal submission, Thiru N.R. Chandran appearing for respondent contended that the offence committed by the petitioner was a continuing offence and as such, S. 300, Crl. P.C, would not apply and it was open to the respondent to launch prosecution so long as the offence continued. Thiru N.R. Chandran placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P. : 1984 L.W. (Crl.) (S.C.) 82 (S.N.): A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1688, and also on an unreported decision of this Court rendered by Swamikkannu, J., in K.S. Kandaswami v. Tiruchirapalli Market Committee Crl. R.C. No. 801 of 1983, by Superintendent, Tiruchy Market Committee.