DEVKINANDAN Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a case where petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 1000/ - for offence under section 17 read with section 28(2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. In addition to it, he was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6578/ -from 19.1.1997 with interest at the rate of 3% per month with late fee of Rs. 23,437.46 paise, by the trial court. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, wherein, he has been granted benefit of probation by the appellate court, however, direction for payment of Mandi Fee of Rs. 6578/ - and late fee @ 3% per month, thus order for payment of a sum of Rs. 23437.46 was passed against late fee. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no provision for imposition of interest under section 28(2) of the Act of 1961 thus impugned order passed by the appellate court deserves to be set aside so far as imposition of interest at the rate of 3% per month.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the appellate court has modified the order and extended benefit of probation to the petitioner but order for payment of Mandi Fee along with late fee has been maintained. The court below has not awarded interest on the amount of Mandi Fee thus argument of learned counsel for petitioner is not made out from the order in reference.

(3.) THE only argument raised before me is regarding imposition of late fee at the rate of 3% on Mandi fee. I find that interest has not been imposed on the Mandi fee, rather it is late fee at the rate of 3%. The question is as to whether late fee could have been granted by the appellate court in reference to section 28(2) of the Act of 1961. Section 28(2) is relevant thus quoted hereunder for ready reference -