OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Sahay, J. This is an application for revision filed by Om Prakash, revisionist against the order dated June 20, 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, dismissing an appeal preferred by the revisionist and upholding the conviction and sen tence.

(2.) THE revisionist was prosecuted under Section 37, U. P. Kishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 on the allegations that the revisionist was a dealer in Khoa doing business as Commission Agent in the market yard of Mandi Samiti, Meerut. He did not obtain the requisite licence from the Mandi Samiti for doing business for the year 1979-80 and had accordingly committed an offence under Section 37. THE revisionist denied the prosecution case and alleged that he was a retailer in khoa and had been involved on account of mis-apprehension.

(3.) IN this revision learned Counsel for revisionist has urged before me that the complaint was not examined and the sole testimony of P. W. 1 was not sufficient to establish the charge againt the revisionist. I do not find any force in this contention. P. W. 1 Rajendra Pal Singh is Supervisor of Mandi Samiti and he has knowledge about the affairs of the Mandi Samiti. His statement that the revisionist carried on business in Khoa is not in dispute. The oral evidence as to the status of the revisionist being a Commission Agent is supported by the admission made by the revisionist in his reply to the notice served upon him. Under the circumstances, the Courts below have not committed any error in believ ing the testimony of P. W. 1 and holding that the prosecution case has been established thereby. It was not necessary to examine the complainant Sri Jaswant Singh, Secretary of the Mandi Samiti in these circumstances. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the entries in the register maintained by the Samiti showing the revisionist to be a Commis sion Agent were not duly proved. This circumstances is also of no significance in this case. The revisionist was liable to obtain a licence under Section 9 of the Act and as he committed a breach of the provisions thereof by not obtaining licence, he committed an offence under Section 37. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there revisionist was a retailer, he was liable to obtain licence under Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 67 of the Rules framed thereunder. The liability of the revisionist having been established the conviction of the revisionist under Section 37 is fully justified and the sentence of fine imposed upon him cannot also be said to be excessive.