SUKHBASI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

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 100.00.

(2.) IT is not disputed that there is a regulated market at Budaun. Tlie 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)(1) 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.) AN appeal was preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge in which it was admitted that he had not submitted statement in Form 48 daily as demanded by the Market Committee according to Rule 80 of the Adhiniyam and the bye-laws framed under it. The only contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge was that the said bye-law by means of which the Market Committee had prescribed a statement to be submitted in Form 48 was ultra vires of its powers and that the bye-law framed was also ultra vires of the powers of the State Government. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not accept the said contention. He was of the view that Section 40 of the Adhiniyam gave an authority to the State Government to frame rules and bye-laws under clause (xxvi) of the said section which related to maintenance and submission of account books by traders, commission agents, brokers, weighmen and their inspection. It was in accordance with this rule making power that the State Government framed rule 80 which provides that every trader, commission agent, broker, warehouseman, weighman, measurer and any other person handling or dealing in specified agricultural produce and holding licence under these rules, shall keep account books in such forms and render such periodical returns and at such time and in such form as the market Committee may, from time to time, direct and shall render such assistance in the collection of and prevention of the evasion of fees due under these rules and bye-laws and in the prevention of breach of the rules and bye-laws as may be required by the Market Committee. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before the learned Sessions judge that the rule requiring a trader to render periodical returns was beyond the authority of clause (xxvi) of Section 40 because this rule provided only for the preparation of original account books and did not provide for submission of returns was also rejected. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the submission of return was a method of checking of the account books because the returns were prepared from the account books and instead of the account books in original being called if the traders were called upon to make statements in certain forms it could cot be said that the purpose of the said rule was in any way beyond the rule making power.