RAYALASEEMA JUTE MILLS Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 28-10-2002, in crl. A. No. 50 of 2000 on the file of the i Additional District and Sessions Judge, chittoor, wherein the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for the offence undersection 17 (c) (1)r/w 23 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (forbrevity, 'the Act') in S. T. C. No. 117of 1996 on the file of the V Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Chittoor.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing forthe revision petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent/complainant. Perused the records.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint in S. T. C. No. 117 of 1996 alleging that the revision petitioner who is a licenced trader under the Act failed to produce the account books for the years, 1992-93 to 1994-95 in spite of notice/ex. P-1 issued under section 17 (c) (1) of the Act and failed to respond to the show cause notice/ex. P-2, and therefore after obtaining the necessary orders of sanction under Ex. P-3 the complaint was filed. The revision petitioner/accused took a plea that he gave a reply notice. Ex. D-1 to the demand notice. Ex. P-1 and also submitted Explanation/ ex. D-2 to the show cause notice/ex. P-2 stating thatthe registers were produced before the Commercial Tax authorities for the pu rpose of assessment and therefore they could not be produced by him in response to Ex. P-1/ demand notice. The trial Court disbelieved the version of the accused and held that he failed to establish that at the given time the registers were in the custody of the Commercial Tax authorities and he also failed to establish the service of Exs. D-1 and D-2 on the complaint. Holding that except the self-serving oral testimony of the accused/d. W. 1 there was no other evidence to substantiate the plea put forward by him for non-production of the registers and in view of the fact that the accused has in fact admitted the service of demand notice/ex. P-1, and show cause notice/ex. P-2 on him and his non-production of the registers in response thereto, the trial court found the accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 17 (c) (1) r/w section 23 (5) of the Act and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned I Additional District and sessions Judge, Chittoor also confirmed the said conviction and sentence by judgment, dated 28-10-2002, in Crl. A. No. 50 of 2000. Hence, the present Revision Case by the accused.