Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate of Pattambi under the Malabar Market Committee Bye-law 25 (6) read with Bye-law 27 (18) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The case against him was that he did not submit the returns culled for by the Secretary of the Committee regarding his business as a licensed dealer in arecanut. 2. The petitioner does not deny his failure to send the return. He also admits that he had received the notice calling for the returns. He however maintains that he was not bound by law to send any returns. He also questions the Secretary's power to call for the returns and his competence to -institute proceedings against him, 3. The question regarding the Secretary's competence to launch prosecutions has been considered by us in Criminal R. P. 217, (1963 K.L.T. 1035) the judgment in which is pronounced herewith and, for the reasons stated therein, we hold that the prosecution is competent. 4. We also do not find any merit in the defence contention that the Secretary has no power to call for any returns from the accused. The argument is that under R.8 of the rules made under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, the Secretary is only to carry out the resolutions of the Market Committee and as there is no such resolution by the committee calling for returns, the Secretary cannot on his own ask for any returns. This argument is completely devoid of merit. The Market Committee is empowered by S.19 (1) to make bye-laws for the regulation of the business and conditions of trading within its area and in the exercise of this power the committee has made the bye-law which enjoins the licensees to submit returns and the Secretary to receive them. Bye-law 25 (6) reads thus: "The licensee shall maintain regular accounts of all his transactions in each kind of commercial crop in a form or forms approved by the Secretary and shall send to the Secretary such reports and returns as may from time to time be required in such forms as may be specified by him. Bye-law 25 (6) reads thus: "The licensee shall maintain regular accounts of all his transactions in each kind of commercial crop in a form or forms approved by the Secretary and shall send to the Secretary such reports and returns as may from time to time be required in such forms as may be specified by him. These shall include a daily report of arrivals and despatches from licensees within five miles of a regulated market or office under the control of the Committee and a weekly report from other licensees transacting business within the notified area." It is therefore quite clear that the Secretary has the power to call for the returns. 5. Another objection is that the accused, a dealer with a licence for storing, weighing, processing, etc., of arecanuts cannot be asked to submit returns of sales and purchases of arecanuts for which he is not licensed. This contention also has to fail. The copy of the notice sent to him, Ext. P-6 reads thus: "It is noticed that although a licensed trader carrying on arecanut trade within five miles of the Regulated Market at Vattamkulam, you have failed to submit daily returns of your transactions as required under Bye-law 25 (6) of the Malabar Market Committee Bye-laws. The approved form as per which the returns are to be submitted is herewith sent to you for your information." The defence has no case that the forms sent to him were inappropriate. In fact he has not even produced them in evidence. What has been called for is the daily returns of his transactions in arecanuts. If sales and purchases of arecanut form part of his transaction, then he has to keep a regular account of them and also send the relevant statements to the Secretary as is provided for by Bye-law 25 (6). 6. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Dismissed.