MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under sec. 397/401 read with Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order of the Munsif Magistrate, Shri Karanpur, dated 20-3-79, for quashing the charge of the petitioner, as also for setting aside the order of the court dated 20-3-79 under sec. 258 Cr. P.C.

(2.) The facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Keshrisinghpur, through its Secretary filed a complaint against Shri Mahaveer Prasad Baid as Supervisor, Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur. Actually, two licences have been obtained from the complainant by both these companies, i.e.. Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur and B.C.M, Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur. It has been recorded in both these licences that they will he represented by Shri Mahaveer Prasad Baid as their representative. The licence issued in favour of B.C.M. Oil Mills, Keshrisinghpur is bearing No. 56. where as the licence issued in favour of Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur. is bearing No. 1. It is alleged that cotton seed is a regulated commodity, on the sale and purchase of which, the complainant is entitled to charge cess (tax) advalorem at the rate of 1%. It has been alleged by the complainant that accused No. 1, i.e., Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factor, Keshrisinghpur, sold cotton seeds worth-Rs. 15,76,076. IIP. to accused No. 2, i.e., B.C.M. Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur between the period of 22-11-75 to 18-12-76, It has enclosed with the complaint the Schedule containing the details of those sales. It has, therefore, been contended that the accused persons should have paid cess (tax) to the complainant amounting to Rs. 15750. 76P. Which they have failed to do and, therefore, they are liable to prosecution under Sec. 28 (2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) because the cess is recoverable from them under the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act of 1961 along with Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963),

(3.) While the complaint was pending before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Karanpur, an application was moved by the complainant to drop the proceedings against accused No. 2, i. e., B.C.M. Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur. That application was accepted by the learned lower court on 25-7-78 and consequently, the proceedings against accused No. 2 were dropped. The learned lower court, however, proceeded against accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 filed an application under sec. 258 of the Cr. P. C. for stay of these proceedings. That application was, however, rejected by the learned lower court and the learned lower court further read over the statement of allegation to the accused and obtained his explanation. It is against these two acts of the learned lower court that the petitioner has come up in revision.'