Judgment :- 1. Sri. V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, the learned counsel for the appellant in all the above four appeals against acquittal, submits that in all these cases the facts are almost identical and the question of law involved the same, and that, therefore, it would be sufficient to consider the facts stated and the question of law raised in one among them. I am, therefore, considering Crl. Appeal No. 318 of 1972 in detail, and the decision taken in that appeal would dispose of the other appeals also. 2. The appellant-complainant is the Secretary, Malabar Market Committee, Kozhikode. The prosecution is under S.17 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Act XX of 1933), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for violation of the provisions contained in S.5 of the Act by the respondent accused. 3. S.5 of the Act reads as follows: "5. Trading in commercial crops in notified area: (1) No person shall within a notified area, set up, establish or use, or continue or allow to be continued any place for the purchase or sale of a notified commercial crop except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted to him by the Collector: Provided that after the establishment in such area of a market for the purchase and sale of a notified commercial crop, no licence for the purchase or sale of such commercial crop shall be granted or renewed in respect of any place situated within such distance of the market as may from time to time be fixed by the State Government-Provided further that the market Committee may exempt from the provisions of this sub-section any person who carries on the business of purchasing or selling any commercial crop in quantities not exceeding those prescribed by rules made under this Act. Provided also that a person selling a commercial crop which has been grown by him or a co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1932, selling a commercial crop which has been grown by any the members shall be exempt from the provisions of this sub section but the State Government may withdraw such exemption in respect of any such person or co-operative society or all of them (2) Nothing contained in sub-s. (1) shall apply to a person purchasing for his private use a commercial crop in quantities not exceeding those prescribed by rules made under this Act. (3) No person shall within a notified area, set up, establish or use, continue or allow to be continued, any place for the storage, weighment. pressing or processing of any notified commercial crop except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted to him by the Collector. Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall apply to a person in respect of any notified commercial crop grown by him. (4) A licence may be refused to a person (i) Whose licence was cancelled and three years have not elapsed since the date of the cancellation; (ii) who has been convicted of an offence, or been guilty of misconduct, which in the opinion of the Collector, affects the said person's integrity as a man of business; (iii) in regard to whom the Collector is satisfied, after such enquiry as he considers adequate, that such person is a benamidar or a partner with any other person to whom a licence may be refused under clauses (i) or (ii); Provided that in all cases of refusal the applicant shall be entitled to appeal to the Revenue Board and the Government is the prescribed manner. (5) Every person to whom a licence is granted under this section shall comply with provisions of this Act, the rules and bye laws made thereunder and the conditions specified in the licence." 4. The respondent-accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Quilandy. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate. The respondent-accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Quilandy. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-accused and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge is based mainly on two grounds: (1) the prosecution did not succeed in establishing by letting in acceptable evidence that the respondent-accused had purchased, sold or stored coconuts in the place in question as alleged by the prosecution, and (2) in any event inasmuch as the prosecution alleged only a solitary instance of purchase of coconuts by the respondent-accused, that would not be sufficient to justify the prosecution of the accused. 5. Regarding the finding on facts I do not propose to interfere in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents produced on the side of the prosecution and has come to the definite conclusion that it is not safe to depend on the evidence that has already been let in by the prosecution, when there was scope for better and more acceptable evidence which the prosecution did not care to let in. I find no scope for a different conclusion on a reappraisal of the evidence on record. I have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the judgment of the learned Sessions judge acquitting the accused on this ground. 6. However, I am not prepared to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that to constitute an offence under S.5 (1) of the Act it is necessary that there should be a series of user or at least more than one user of the place for purchase, sale or storage of the notified crop. 7. Sri. M. Ratna Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent in three of the cases, and Sri. P. Ramakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent in one of the cases, submit that the words "set up, establish or use" appearing in sub-s. (1) of S.5 of the Act connote the use of the place for purchase, sale or storage of the notified crop on more occasions than one to fall within f he mischief of the Act. It may be so, I am prepared to agree, with reference to the words "set up" and "establish" used in the sub-section. It may be so, I am prepared to agree, with reference to the words "set up" and "establish" used in the sub-section. However, going by the plain meaning of the word "use" and on a consideration of the other relevant provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye laws, I find that this argument of the respondent cannot be accepted with reference to the word "use". 8. While construing the provisions contained in S.11 of the Act, Govindan Nair J. has observed as follows in P. Chathu & Co. v. State of Kerala (1966 KLT.1073): " If S.5 is read with S.11 and if the purpose and object as well as the scheme of the statute are kept in mind, it is clear that S.11 (2) though it is widely worded really imposes levy of fees only on such persons who are obliged to take licences. S.11 must be read with and toned down by S.5." In this case also, as in the said case, it will be advantageous to consider the provisions contained in S.5 (1) of the Act with the other relevant provisions in the Act, the rules and by laws keeping in mind the purpose and object as well as the scheme of the statute. The purpose and object of the Act have been expressed in the words of the Supreme Court in Krishna Co. v. Market Committee (1967 (1) Supreme Court Reports 974). Shelat J. has observed as follows: "The object in passing the Act was to prevent the mischief of exploitation of producers of commercial crops such as coconuts and copra and to see that such producers got a fair price for their goods. The mischief to prevent which the Act was enacted was the exploitation of these producers by middlemen and those buying goods from them and therefore the Act provided facilities such as market place, place for storage, correct weighment etc., so that the producers and his purchasers come face to face in a regulated and controlled market and a fair price was obtained by them." Shelat J. also observed in the same judgment as follows: " If the construction suggested by Mr. Agarwala were to be accepted and the section were to be construed as being applicable to those transactions only which have a dual aspect, that is, buying by a dealer from a producer and the dealer selling those identical goods within the notified area, the object of the Act would be defeated, for in a large number of cases the transactions would halt at the stags of buying and the Committee in those cases would have no power to levy the fee on them." I am afraid, almost the same consequences would follow if the word "use" is S.5 (1) is construed to connote a series of user, and, therefore, to mean that a single act of user would not entail the penal consequences contemplated by the Act. Such construction, in my view, would defeat the purpose of the Act to a large extent inasmuch as it would be easier for the accused to challenge the prosecution putting the burden on the prosecution to prove a series of use of the place for purchase, sale or storage of the notified crop. Moreover, such a construction is neither warranted by the plain meaning of the word "use" appearing in the sub-section or by the scheme of the statute. 9. We may now examine the scheme of the Act. Sub-s. (1) of S.4A of the Act provides, inter alia, that the State Government shall establish a market committee for every notified area. It is the duty of the market committee to enforce the provisions of the Act and rules and by laws made thereunder is such notified area. Sub-s. (2) of S.4A requires every market committee to establish in the notified area such number of markets providing for such facilities, as the State Government may from time to time direct, for the purchase and sale of the commercial crop or crops concerned. 10. S.5, which has already been extracted in this judgment, provides that except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted to him by the Collector, no person shall within a notified area set up, establish, or use, or continue or allow to be continued any place for the purchase or sale of a notified commercial crop. While construing the word "use" appearing in sub-s. (1) of S.5, it will be profitable to look into the provisos to that subsection. While construing the word "use" appearing in sub-s. (1) of S.5, it will be profitable to look into the provisos to that subsection. The first proviso makes clear that no licence for the purchase or sale of such commercial crop shall be granted or renewed in respect of any place situated within such distance of the market as may from time to time be fixed by the State Government after the establishment in such area of a market for the purchase and sale of a notified commercial crop. The second proviso empowers the market committee to grant exemption from the provisions of sub-section to any person who carries on the business of purchasing or selling any commercial crop in quantities not exceeding those prescribed by rules made under this Act. The third proviso grants exemption from the provisions of the sub-section with respect to sale if the sale is of the crop raised by the grower himself or if the sale is by a co-operative society of the crop raised by any of its members. 11. R.38 of the rules framed under the Act enumerates the items of commercial crops and fixes the exemption limit thereof for the purpose of the second proviso to S.5(1) and for the purpose of S.5(3) of the Act. Bye law 20 of the bye laws made by virtue of the provisions contained in S.19 of the Act prescribes the form of licence required under sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.5 of the Act. The proviso to bye law 20(1) reads as follows: "Provided that no licence under S.5(1) and 5(3) shall be necessary to a retailer owning a grocery or petty shop where the total quantity of any commercial crop in stock at any one time and total quantities thereof sold or purchased in any single transaction or in a day do not exceed the limits shown in columns 2,3 and 4 respectively of the schedule below". It may also be noted that under sub-s. (2) of S.19 it is provided that any bye law made under the said section may provide that contravention thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 50/-. Bye law 30 provides pwvi-sion for prosecution in case there is any violation of the provisions of the Act, rules or the bylaws. 12. 50/-. Bye law 30 provides pwvi-sion for prosecution in case there is any violation of the provisions of the Act, rules or the bylaws. 12. I have referred to the provisions contained in the provisos to sub-s. (1) of S.5 of the Act, R.38 and bye law 20 for the purpose of highlighting the point that the provisions in the Act, the rules and the bye laws have specifically granted exemptions wherever they are deemed necessary and the proviso to bylaw 20 makes It clear that it would constitute an offence even where the purchase in a single transaction or in a day exceeds the quantity shown in columns 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule thereunder. The important aspect is that it is not the number of transactions or the number of the user that matters. If the retailer stores, purchases or sells only the quantity within the limits shown in columns 2,3 or 4 of the schedule, he is exempted, not otherwise. I am, therefore, of the view that the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that a single act of user would not amount to an offence is not correct provided the quantity dealt with by the accused is in excess of the quantity mentioned in columns 2,3 and 4 of the schedule to bye law 20 or R.38 of the rules or does not fall within the exemptions granted under the second proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.5 of the Act. As in Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1972, in the other three cases also there is no satisfactory evidence to establish that the place has been used for purchasing, selling or storing coconuts as alleged by the prosecution. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed and the judgments of the learned Sessions judge setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate are confirmed.