STATE Vs. SHIVBALAK GAWRISHANKAR DUBE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State with a view to challenge the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 363 of 1969 on his file.

(2.) THE complaint in the Court below was filed by one Ratnakar Digamber Khulge, the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee at Palghar. The allegation of the complainant was that the accused who was a resident of Navli, Taluka Palghar, was trading in grass and paddy straw and since Palghar Taluka was declared to be a market area as far back as 12.8.1960 and a Market Committee was constituted at Palghar on 18.7.1963, it was incumbent on the accused to obtain the necessary licence under Section 6 (1) or the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. It was said that he had actually obtained such a licence for the year 1967 -68, but thereafter he continued to trade without obtaining the requisite licence for subsequent years and thereby incurred the penalty prescribed by Sections 46 and 52 of the aforesaid Act.

(3.) THE defence of this accused was that he was not trading in agricultural produce as defined in Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act and since he was merely dealing in grass that was spontaneously grown on his own lands, such grass did not come within the definition of "agricultural produce" and it was consequently not necessary for him to obtain the licence prescribed by Section 6 (1).