SUKHBASI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHBASI Lal has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 20th July, 1972, of the Sessions Judge, Budaun, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the learned Magistrate convicting the applicant under Section 37(2) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter called 'the Adhiniyam', for violation of Rule 80 of the Rules framed under the said Adhiniyam and awarding a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-.

(2.) IT is not disputed that there is a regulated market at Budaun. The applicant is the owner of the firm known 'Sukhbasi Lal Birjesh Chandra' situate at Budaun. He is said to have violated several rules and sections of the Adhiniyam. Four charges were, accordingly, levelled against him. One of the said charges was that the applicant had been doing the work of a retail dealer without obtaining any licence in violation of Section 9(2) of the Adhiniyam. The second charge was that he did not file statements in Forms 48, 5 and 54 Ka daily inspite of being directed to do so under rule 80 with the result that he violated the provisions of the said rule also. The third charge was that he did not deposit the market fee and hence violated rule 68(2)(I) of the Rules under Adhiniyam. The fourth charge was that he did not comply with the conditions of his licence as a wholesale dealer.

(3.) IN the application in revision the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the said point which was considered and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned counsel before me is as to what meaning could be given to the words 'periodical returns' used in rule 80 of the rules framed under the Adhiniyam. IN the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical principles, Vol. II, at page 1474, 'periodical' means "recurring at regular periods or intervals ; loosely, reappearing at intervals, intermittent." Hence the learned counsel submitted that if the returns are to be submitted daily it would be different from submitting a return periodically. The meaning given to the word 'periodical' in the dictionary is to be taken into consideration only if the bye-laws framed under the Adhiniyam do not fix any period for the returns to be filed in Form 48. There is Paper No. A-25 on the record whose heading is : Karyalaya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Budaun, Samast Thoke Viya-pari, Arhatiya, Dalai, Tolak Ityad". It is provided in clause 1 of the said paper that a trader will have to file the returns in Form 48 at the end of every day or upto the noon of the next following day to the Mandi Samiti. Further time extended upto the noon of the next day for the filing of the returns daily clearly suggests that a regular extra period beginning from the morning of the next day upto the noon of that day is provided for filing the return of the earlier day and this could be said to have the effect of returns being filed periodically. IN this view of the matter if the statements in Form 48 were not filed by the applicant he could be said to have committed a default in respect of it with the result that the second charge was clearly proved against him and he was rightly convicted by the two courts below particularly when this bye-law was in furtherance of the object of clause (xxvi) and instead of the account books being filed the traders were required only to submit returns in Form 48. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to the contrary will have to be rejected and neither the rule nor the bye-laws could be said to be beyond the powers of the State Government or the Market Committee.