WAMANRAO MOTIRAMJI MASODKAR Vs. AMRUTLAL GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an interesting question regarding interpretation of Rule 33 of the rules framed under the C. P. and Berar Agricultural Produce Market Act. 1935 (Act No. XXIX of 1935 ).

(2.) THE appellant is an Inspector in the employment of the Grain Market Committee, Amravati, which has been duly constituted under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1935, Section 3 of this Act enables the provincial Government to declare by a notification any place or market as a market for sale or purchase of agricultural produce. Every such notification has to define the limits of the market. Accordingly, a notification was issued on 27th October 1956 for defining the limits of the market under Agricultural Produce Market Act at Amravati. The market yard is the area included within the defined limits stated in this notification and the second paragraph of the notification says that the market proper shall include market yard and land and buildings within a radius of one mile from the market yard.

(3.) THE appellant was authorised by the market Committee under Section 19 of the Act to institute the present proceedings by way of a complaint against respondent No. 1. The complaint is that respondent no. 1 is a dealer or trader in agricultural produce in Amravati, that every trader or dealer in agricultural produce in Amravati is required to obtain a licence for such trade from the Committee and that respondent No. 1 has not obtained such a licence. It was further alleged that the accused purchased through the Adat of one Harinarayan Bhagirath, a grain broker, 120 bags of groundnut on 14-11-1964. A copy of the bill relating to this transaction is on record as Ex. 14. It shows that the respondent is a purchaser of this quantity of groundnut, that one Harikisan Mundada of Udkhed was the seller and the transaction was brought about through the brokerage or agency of Messrs. Harinarayan Bhagirath, grain and pulse broker. Inasmuch as respondent No. 1 has not obtained licence as a licensed trader entitled to make purchase or sale in the market area, he was prosecuted under a complaint dated 3-1-1966. The respondent on appearing in obedience to the notice admitted that Harinarayan Kalantri firm had purchased groundnuts on 14-11-1964 and sold the same to him at Amravati under bill no. 16, and that the firm of brokers had collected Adat, i. e. commission in respect of the transaction from him. In a further answer respondent no. 1 stated that he had purchased the above bags from the commission agent and that he was not required to hold a licence for making such purchase. The reason given was that his commission agent was holding the necessary licence and therefore he was not required on a proper construction of the rules, to hold the licence. This contention has found favour with the learned Magistrate who has acquitted the first respondent. Against this acquittal the complainant asked for leave to appeal and leave having been granted the matter is now before us in appeal against the acquittal.