PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.09.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1155 (M)/1996 by which after taking cognizance of an offence under Section 48 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"), the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

(2.) On 21.09.1996, the complainant, namely, the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Markets Committee, Mussalahpur filed a complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 1155 (M)/1996 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging violation of the provisions of the Act punishable under Section 48 of the Act.

(3.) Though, the complaint runs into several pages, the gist of the complaint is that the petitioner no. 1 Prakash Singh is carrying on business in the name and style of M/S Patliputra Cands and is a clearing and sales agent of Nestle India Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling diverse food products under different brand names. Each of these products was manufactured with very sophisticated machinery and with the latest food processing technology. The different products of Nestle India Limited were introduced in the markets on various dates as mentioned in the complaint. Petitioner no. 2 Shyam Sundar Prasad @ Shyam Sundar Agarwal is a staff of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 3 Kanta Seth and petitioner no. 4 D. E. Ardeshir @ D.E.A. Presher are working as Administration Executive and Managing Director of the Nestle India Limited. Being a licensee, it is obligatory duty of the accused petitioners to collect the market fee from the unlicensed buyers and to deposit the same with the Market Committee. It is alleged that as the accused have not followed the direction of the Market Committee, the same amounts to violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. The representatives of the complainant inspected the business premises of M/S Patliputra Cands and seized the books of accounts pertaining to the period between September, 1985 and May, 1986 whereafter the complainant asked the petitioner no. 1 to pay the market fee to the tune of Rs.2,37,917.66/- on all the products sold by them for the period September, 1985 to May, 1986. It is alleged that vide letter dated 11.08.1986 (Annexure-7), the complainant asked the petitioner no. 1 to pay market fees on following products: Milk Maid, Lactogen, Cerelac, Nestum Baby Cereal, Nespray Milk Powder, Lactogen Infant Formula, Milk Powder, Tomato Ketchup, Hot and Sweet, but instead of paying market fee he filed several writ petitions before the High Court details of which is given in the complaint in order to escape the purview of the Act and the Rules made thereunder with the purpose to defraud the Market Committee causing wrongful loss to it.