STATE Vs. BABULAL FAKIRCHAND GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur, by which the respondent -accused was acquitted of an offence consisting of the alleged contravention of certain provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the Rules and Bye -laws made thereunder. The accused was the working partner of a firm which did business at Kolhapur. The city of Kolhapur is included in a 'Market' under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and transactions of the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the market are governed by the provisions of that Act. The firm of the accused held a licence which enabled it to function as a trader as well as a commission agent in the market. On February 23, 1955, the accused, as a partner in his firm, sold 491 lumps of jaggery to the Sabarkantha District Co -operative Purchase and Sale Union, Himatnagar. He sent a bill for the dues of that transaction, which included certain items in addition to the price of the lumps of jaggery, and the items which are claimed by the prosecution to have been unauthorised were: (1) Es. 3 -1 -6 as 'Sadharan'; (2) Bs. 6 -3 -0 as 'Vatav'; (3) Rs. 7 -10 -9 as 'Panjarpol'; and (4) Rs. 12 -1 -0 as 'Marfat'. The prosecution case was that the accused, by including the above items in the bill, contravened three provisions: firstly, Section 17 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, a contravention of which is made punishable by Section 21; secondly, Rule 74 of 'the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1941, a contravention of which is made punishable under Rule 77; and thirdly, Rule 12 of Bye -law 35A of the Bye -laws made by the Kolhapur Market Committee, a contravention of which is made punishable under Bye -law 68.

(2.) IN his defence, the accused admitted having included the aforesaid charges in the bill, but he claimed that he had not committed any offence by doing so. He contended that these charges were his trade expenses and were not 'trade allowances' within the meaning of that phrase in Section 17 of the Act. His further defence was that the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the Rules and Bye -laws made thereunder, apply only to transactions in which an agriculturist producer sells his produce to a purchaser or commission agent, and that subsequent transactions of the sale and purchase of that produce are not covered by the Act and by the Rules and Bye -laws made thereunder.

(3.) IN the Court below, the charge in respect of the item of Rs. 6 -3 -0 claimed as 'Vatav' was not pressed. Regarding the remaining three items, the learned Magistrate held that they were in the nature of trade expenses and not 'trade allowances. He also held that re -sales between traders of agricultural commodities are not covered by the Act, the Rules and the Bye -laws. On these findings, he held the accused not guilty of the alleged offence.