RAMANATHAPURAM MARKET COMMITTEE, REP, BY S. ABDUL JABAR, SUPERINTENDENT, REGULATED MARKET, KARAIKUDI Vs. MOHAMMED N. SHAMSHUDEEN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the complainant, viz., Ramanathapuram Market Committee, against the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, in S.T.C. S.78 of 1981, acquitting him of an offence under S. 18(1)(2) and S. 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act (23 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with rule S -A(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) THE facts briefly are - -The respondent was a licence to deal in the business of paddy under S. 6(1) of the Act for the period from 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1980 in Ramanathapuram, which was a notified area under the Act. The respondent was carrying on business in paddy from 1.7.1979 to 31.3.1980. Under R.51A(1) the respondent had to file returns regarding the business done by him in order to enable the Market Committee to levy fee under S. 18 of the Act. In spite of a request to furnish the above returns and in spite of repeated reminders, the respondent failed to furnish the returns under R.51 -A. The petitioner, therefore, addressed the Commercial tax Department for particulars regarding the extent of business done by the respondent and on receipt of information from them under Ex. P21 that the respondent had done business to the extent of Rs. 17,34,702.48 and calculating market fee leviable on the above turn over, fixed the same at Rs. 5,854.60, issued a notice of demand under Ex. P23 on 6.7.1981, requiring the respondent to pay the above amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of the demand. The respondent received Ex. P23 as per acknowledgement Ex. P24. Despite the same, the respondent failed to pay the fee levied and hence the petitioner launched prosecution under S. 18(2) of the Act for failure to pay the fees, made punishable under S. 25(b) of the Act.

(3.) THE trial court, on the above evidence, held that the prosecution for non -payment of the above fee for the period from 1.7.1979 to 31.3.1980 ought to have been filed within six months from the starting point of limitation, viz., 31.3.1980, that the complaint having been filed on 16.11.1981, was barred by limitation under S 468, Crl.P.C., and that in view of the above finding it was not necessary to go into the further question as to whether the respondent was liable to pay market fee or not and acquitted the respondent. Aggrieved with the acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.