JAYSING DAULATSIN RAWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to quash the F. I. R. No. 38/99 dated 28-3-1999 lodged at Police Station Dondaicha, District Dhule. It is the contention of the petitioners that the alleged F. I. R. , on the face of it, does not disclose any offence either under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market Committee (Regulation) Act, 1963 or the Rules made thereunder or even under the provisions of the I. P. C. It is further the contention of the petitioners, that the complaint is purely with political motivation and lacks bona fide on the part of the complainant as the same has been filed to malign the name of the petitioners few days earlier to the election of legislative Assembly knowing well that the petitioners are strong contenders of the candidates for Assembly Constituency. It is further contention of the petitioners that as the offences under the said Act are not cognizable offences and in view of section 56 of the said Act, prosecution can be instituted only by the authorised officer and, therefore, the F. I. R. is absolutely bad in law.

(2.) ELABORATING the contention on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Advocate, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal), reported in A. I. R. 1992 S. C. 604 and in the matter of (Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate), reported in 1988 (5) S. C. C. 749 and that of Single Judge of this Court in an unreported matter in Criminal Writ Petitions No. 245, 253 and 300 of 2000 in the case of (Korra Srinivas Rao s/o Krishnamurthy and another v. The State of Maharashtra and others), delivered on 5th December, 2000, it was contended that in terms of section 31 of the said Act, if the agricultural produce is brought in the market area for the purposes of processing then the market fee is not leviable on such agricultural produce. The petitioners Company bring Maize for processing and they also pay market fees on this agricultural produce. After satisfying the market committee that it has been processed within 30 days, they also claim back the amount of market fee already deposited. Rule 32 of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, the market fees can be claimed back by the processor by filing necessary declarations in Form 8 and all these formalities were duly completed by the petitioners and the market fee was claimed back from time to time. It is further contended that the complainant Mahendra Bahgwan Patil is a person set up by one Hemant Deshmukh is political opponent of the petitioners and the said Mahendra Patil was also working as Public Relation Officer with Sindkheda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. , of which Hemant Deshmukh was the Chairman. Considering that the petitioners are the strong contenders of the candidates of Assembly Constituency a complaint is filed with political motivation. Drawing attention to sections 46 to 52 of the said Act, it was contended that the penalties leviable under the said provisions clearly disclose that the punishment is in the form of fine and hence, none of the offences under the said Act can be said to be cognizable offences and as such, the Police authorities had no powers under Cri. P. C. to register F. I. R. The learned Advocate further submitted that the copies of the documents placed before this Court along with the petition, clearly establish that the collection of the amount alleged in the complaint by the petitioner was towards refund of the fees in terms of provisions contained in section 31 and Rule 32 of the said Act and Rules. respectively.

(3.) PERUSAL of the copy of the complaint discloses that the same relates to the allegation of payment of an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- by the market committee without any decision in that regard in accordance of the provisions of law and, therefore, there has been violation of various provisions of the said Act. It has been also alleged in the complaint that the said amount has been paid without complying with the provisions of law, by fabricating the documents and to that extent, there has been misappropriation of the said amount of the market committee. Section 31 of the said Act provides that it shall be competent to a Market Committee to levy and collect fees in the prescribed manner at such rates as may be decided by it from every purchaser of agricultural produce marketed in the market area. Further, Rule 32 (3) of the said Rules provides that a trader, commission agent, processor shall immediately on bringing any declared agricultural produce in any market area for the purpose of processing or for export as the case may be, make a declaration in Form 8 and shall deposit with market committee an amount equal to the market fee payable on such agricultural produce. It further provides that the market committee shall refund the amount of deposit to the trader, commission agent, or processor, as the case may be, immediately on the production of the proof of processing or export of agricultural produce within 30 days from the date of the aforesaid declaration. In other words, section 31 of the said Act speaks about the levy and collection of fees in the prescribed manner in relation to the agricultural produce marketed in the market area. Rule 32 (3) which has been referred to as entitling refund of the fees, refers to the deposit of amount equal to the amount of market fees payable by the trader on agricultural produce. Second part of the said Rule 32 (3) provides, as already stated above, for refund of the said amount of deposit on production of proof of processing or exporting of the agricultural produce within 30 days from the date of the declaration. In other words, it is a matter of investigation to find out whether the above provisions have been complied with before the refund order is made or not. Therefore, even assuming that the provisions of law provide for refund of the amount by the market committee, it simultaneously provides that such refund has to be ordered on production of certain proof regarding certain facts and the acts to be complied with by the trader who had deposited the amount along with the declaration in Form 8.