ASHWINI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 15.11.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in' appeal No. 37/96 by which he partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused petitioner in the manner that he maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section F28(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur through his judgment dated 9.8.1994 in Criminal Case No. 98/91, but instead of sentencing him, he granted the benefit of probation to the accused petitioner and set aside the order of sentence dated 9.8.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur sentencing accused petitioner to three months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default of payment of fine to further, under go one month S.I.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: PW -2 B.C. Mathur filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur on 12.3.1991 in capacity as Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur stating inter -alia that on 12.1.1991 he inspected the firm M/s. Kirit Traders, Jodhpur and during inspection, it was found that M/s. Kirti Traders violated provisions of the Act of 1961 and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963'). It was further stated in the complaint that Bill Book No. 401 to 500 of the said firm, which started from 2.7.1990, was checked and at that time, proprietor of the firm, namely, accused petitioner Ashwini Kumar informed that the business of Ghee was started from July, 1990 and on checking of the Bill Book, it was bound that Ghee was sold by them to purchasers, but Mandi fee was not charged and there was a seal on the Bill that the Mandi fee would be paid by the Bill that the Mandi fee would be paid by the purchasers. But, according to the complainant, that fee was to be paid by the firm, of which accused petitioner was proprietor and, therefore, fee to the tune of Rs. 32,750/ - was found due against the firm and by not paying that amount of fee, the accused petitioner and his firm have contravened Section 17 punishable under Section 28(2) of the Act of 1961.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the demand was rightly raised.