GANGA BISHAN FRUIT CO GADDIANNARAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL AND COOPERATION MARKETING DEPARTMENT HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed apprehending the launching of prosecution under Section 23 of the A.P. Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act. 1966 (for short 'the Act') for violation of the provisions contained under Section 7(5) of the Act.

(2.) It is not in dispute that for the previous years prosecutions had been launched, but they ended in acquittal in view of the Judgment rendered by the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.618 of 1988. The said Judgment was based on a Judgment of this Court dated 29-4-1993 rendered in Criminal Appeals No.1075 of 1992 and batch on the ground that there were no formats prescribed for submission of the returns. Even though Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners, being the Commission Agents, are not obligated to file any returns for the reason that the tak patties are submitted from time to time by remitting the amounts mentioned therein, we do not accede to the said contention for the reason that when the petitioners are the Commission Agents and obtained licences, they are bound by the conditions of the licence and condition No.3 thereof obligates them to file the returns every 15 days. Rule 70 of A.P., Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') reiterates the same. Further, in consonance with the said rule, Bye-law 24(7) has been framed, which obligates the filing of the return not only by the Trader, Agent etc., but also by the Commission Agent and, as such, we hold that the petitioners, even though Commission Agents, are liable to file returns as contemplated under Rule 70 of the Rules and Bye-law 24(7) read with Condition 3 of Licence, but there is a lacuna in that. The format prescribed as Annexure-I does not pertain to the Commission Agent at all and everything relates to the Trader as none of the columns to be filled up are germane insofar as the functions of the Commission Agent are concerned. It starts as a 'purchase statement' and then the name of the Trader to be mentioned. Everything pertains to the purchasers be within the market or outside the market and some other particulars like quantum of market fee etc. This Annexure-I cannot be filled up by the Commission Agent and, as such, we cannot find fault with the petitioners in not filing such returns.

(3.) Mrs. Nanda Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee, placed reliance on a Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in G. Venugopal v. State of A.P., 1993 APLJ (Crl.) 123 to the effect that even if the format is not prescribed, the Commission Agents are not free from the obligation of filing the returns. We do not agree with the ratio laid down by the learned single Judge. The matter relates to prosecution not only under the Act, but ultimately it results in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is a basic principle that whenever penal provision is there, the provisions of law have got to be strictly construed for the reason that if there is no law prescribed on the date when the prosecution is launched, then the same will be offensive of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and, as such, without prescribed format conforming to law no obligation can be enforced for filing the returns. For the said reason, we do not approve the decision rendered by the learned single Judge in G. Venugopal 's case (supra).