STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all the five appeals mentioned above are identical in nature and hence they are disposed of by one common judgment. The facts of Appeal No. 485/78 are given here as an illustrative case,

(2.) THE non-petitioner respondent was prosecuted by the Secretary, Marketing Committee (Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti Ltd. Pali) under Section 28 (1) for the violation of Section 3 (2), Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Act, It is not in dispute that the respondent was doing the business of 'kapasia' in the market area of Pali Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti, It is also not in dispute that 'kapasia' is an agricultural produce. However, the dispute raised by the accused is that he used to purchase Kapasia from outside Rajasthan, He only conducted retail sale of Kapasia in Pali. It was pleaded that Kapasia is not produced by the agriculturists of Pali.

(3.) THE trial Court at the conclusion of the trial acquitted the accused on the ground that the explanation of Section 3 (2) Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act permits retail sale without obtaining a license. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court AIR 1962 SC 1517, Paras 15 and 19 at Page No. 1525-26, para 2 at Page 1520 and para 4 at page 1521 and further taking support from the observations made in para 10 of the decision of this Court reported in 1974 Raj LAV 203 : 1974 Tax LR 2352, the trial Court held that it was not necessary to obtain a license for retail sale of Kapasia and, therefore, the prosecution cannot succeed.