STATE Vs. JOKHAN SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents were prosecuted for contravention of provisions of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1975, punishable under Section 48 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, on accusation that on 26th July, 1986, a truck ladden with rice was, allegedly, intercepted by the officials of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sasaram, which was pressed into service for selling of the goods. It was alleged that though the driver managed to take the truck, it was eventually intercepted with 120 bags of rice, pursuant to which judicial process was set in motion to put the respondents on trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses including Yamuna Prasad, Marketing Inspector (P.W. 2), Ram Neresh Rai, Supervisor, Bazar Samiti (P.W. 2), Choudhary Makhan Prasad Singh, Accounts Clerk (P.W. 3) and Raj Kumar Yadav, Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (P.W. 4) who also happens to be the person who set the judicial process in motion. THE trial Court on appreciation of evidence, placed on the record, and finding insufficiency of evidence about the goods being transported for sale which was punishable under Section 48 of the Act, and also having taken notice of the fact that shortly after four days of the incident, the marketing fee was deposited by the offenders, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the prosecution, acquitted respondents of the charges. THE aggrieved Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sasaram has brought this appeal before this Court to assail the propriety of the order of Court below, on premises that the finding recorded by trial Court, pressing into service Section 47 of the Act, which was not attracted by the facts and circumstances of the case and, hence, the finding warrants interference by this Court.

(2.) AFTER appeal was filed before this Court against finding of acquittal, respondents were issued notices to answer the charges brought by the appellant and though on repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the appellant, the Counsel for respondents being an attendance was heard. My attention has been drawn to Section 27 of the Act which enjoins that the Market Committee shall levy and collect market fee on the agricultural produce, brought or sold in the market area and it is sought to be urged that taking the prosecution version to be true on its face value that the truck ladden with 120 bags of rice was intercepted by the officials of Committee, no cogent evidence was ever led at trial to lead to he conclusion that the rice bags were being transported not for other object, but for sale. The next limb of argument convassed on behalf of the respondents was that, in any view of the matter, even though the respondents were not answerable for the charges, they deposited the market fee within four days of the incident and I find all these matters were taken into consideration even by the trial Court, which acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them. The appellant has filed to make out such a case in which finding recorded by the trial Court can be said to be perverse and contrary to weight of mass of evidence. It is well-known that the finding of acquittal recorded by Court can be upset only when there are strong and mitigating circumstances to militate against the bona fide of the prosecution case.