KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI Vs. RADHARAMAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under section 378 (4) Cr. P.C., the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31st March, 1984. I passed by Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Sakti.

(2.) The facts of the case relevant for consideration of this application are that non-applicant Radharaman Agarwal is the owner of a rice mill situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the applicant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. For purpose of his business, the (non-applicant Purchases rice from time to time. In accordance with the provisions of M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and rules made there under, the said non-applicant is required to obtain a licence for purchasing rice. It appears that he had obtained a licence for this purpose, but since the applicant Mandi Samiti found him responsible for breach of condition of licence, the said licence, was cancelled by order dated 3-3-1979 (Ex. P-i). This order is said to have been despatched to the non-applicant by post vide receipt (Ex. P-2). As a. result of this order, the licence held by the non-applicant stood cancelled and he no longer remained entitled to carry on business of purchasing rice. Is appears that the applicant felt that the non-applicant was carrying on business even after cancellation of his licence. It filed the complaint against the non-applicant alleging breach of section-31 read with section 48 of the aforesaid Act. The said complaint has been ultimately dismissed by the orderimpugned and non-applicant acquitted.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the acquittal of the non-applicant is based on the sole finding that cancellation of licence was illegal as section 33(4) of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 was not complied with. Whether the aforesaid provision was complied with or not as not the real issue before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was required to consider if the respondent from applicant was carrying on business without a valid licence in his possession. A licence which remains cancelled by an order passed in accordance with law could not have been revived in these criminal proceedings. In case the non-applicant felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order cancelling his licence, be could have challenged the same by preferring an appeal in accordance with the Act. Even if be had not been served with the order immediately, he had learnt about the same during the course of these proceedings. It is however, nobodys case that the said order has been set-aside by any competent authority acting in accordance with law. As long as the said order had not been set-aside in appropriate proceedings, the non-applicant could not be said to be holding a valid licence. The learned Magistrate could not have set aside the order cancelling licence collaterally in these proceedings. Under the circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent/non-applicant, in so far as it is based on the aforesaid finding cannot be sustained.