Order: In this petition, the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary in C.C.No. 556 of 1973 for having committed an offence punishable under section 66 read with section 122 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), sentencing each one of the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and further confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1974, are challenged. 2. The undisputed facts are that petitioner 1 is a firm and the remaining petitioners are partners of the said firm Respondent 1 the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bellary, found that the petitioners had not paid the market fee etc., and hence called upon them to do so. In the said process he directed the petitioners by writing letter Exhibit P-4 to produce account books etc. He sent Exhibit P-4 in exercise of his powers - as is clear from Exhibit P-4 itself - under section 66 of the Act and read with Government Notification Nos. D.P.C. 468 C.M.D. 68 dated 19th July. 1969. The petitioners failed to comply with what was demanded in Exhibit P-4. Ulimately the Secretary prosecuted the petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under sections 65 and 81 read with rule 86 of the Act. The petitioners were acquitted of the latter mentioned offences. 3. Shri B.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that the respondent secretary had issued Exhibit P-4 and the petitioners did not at all produce the account books as called upon by Exhibit P-4. He urged that the view taken by the two Courts that the residuary section, namely, section 122 of the Act, applies is not correct. He argued that under section 66 of the Act, only power is given to the Secretary or an officer empowered by the State to that effect to call upon a dealer, in the notified agricultural produce to produce his account books etc., and no obligation is cast on the dealer making it incumbent on him to produce. He argued that under section 66 of the Act, only power is given to the Secretary or an officer empowered by the State to that effect to call upon a dealer, in the notified agricultural produce to produce his account books etc., and no obligation is cast on the dealer making it incumbent on him to produce. He in this connection pointed out from the said section that in case of failure to produce, such officer has been further empowered to enter into the premises, search and seize necessary documents and other material to enable the committee to look into the question of recovery of market fee etc. He took me through sections 114 to 122 in Chapter XII of the Act, dealing with penalties and argued that failure to comply with an order or direction issued by such an officer under section 66 of the Act is not made penal and as such a prosecution cannot lie. 4. Sri A.H. Bhagawan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Secretary urged that section 66 gives power to the Secretary, who is so empowered to direct a dealer to produce the account books and when a Secretary so empowered issues a direction, a dealer contravenes the provision of the Act and hence section 122 of the Act would be applicable, therefore, the conviction passed on the petitioners has to be sustained. 5. By Exhibit P-4 the Secretary called upon the petitioners to produce certain account books. The petitioners did not produce. Now the question is whether by so disobeying the direction contained in Exhibit P-4, the petitioners have committed any offence under the Act. 6. Section 66 of the Act reads as follows: "66. Power to order production of accounts and power of entry, inspection and seizure.- (1) Any officer or servant of the Market committee empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, for purposes of this Act, require any person carrying on business in any kind of notified agricultural produce to produce before him the accounts and other documents and to furnish any information relating to the stocks of such agricultural produce, or purchases, sales and deliveries of such agricultural produce by such person and also any other information relating to payment of the market fees by such person. (2) All accounts and registers maintained by any person in the ordinary course of business in any notified agricultural produce and documents relating to the stock of such agriculture produce or purchases, sales and deliveries of such agricultural produce in his possession and the offices, establishments, godowns, vessels or vehicles of such person shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by such officers and servants of the Market Committee as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf. (3) If any such officer or servant has reason to suspect that any person is attempting to evade the payment of any market fee due from him under section 65, or that any person has purchased any notified agricultural produce in contravention of any of the provision of this Act or the rules or the bye-laws in force in the market area, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers or documents of such person as may be necessary, and shall grant a receipt for the same and shall retain the same only so long as may be necessary for examination thereof or for a prosecution. (4) For purposes of sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), such officer or servant may enter or search any place of business, warehouse, office, establishment, godown, vessel or vehicle where such officer or servant has reason to believe that such person keeps or for the time being keeps any accounts, registers or documents of his business, or stocks of notified agricultural produce relating to his business. (5) The provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, shall, so far as may, be, apply to a search under sub-section (4). (6) Where any books of account or other documents are seized from any place and there are entries therein making reference to quantity, quotations, rates, receipt or payment of money or sale or purchase of goods, such books of account or other documents shall be admitted in evidence without witness having to appear to prove the same; and such entries shall be prima facie evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts purported to be therein recorded." Section 66 of the Act is a self contained provision. It vests powers with certain person as empowered by the State Government in that behalf to call upon dealers doing business in notified agricultural produce to produce the accounts, and other documents and to furnish any information relating to the stocks of such agricultural produce or purchases, sales and deliveries of such agricultural produce etc. It further empowers shch officer or servant to take all possible steps to secure that information even by entering into the place of business, warehouse, office, establishment, godown, vessel or vehicle and searching the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. What is clear from the above is that section 66 of the Act is an empowering section, 7. It is well settled that if any person is to be punished for any act committed by him, such an act should be made penal by a statute. Sections 114 to 121 in Chapter XII of the Act deal with such penal provisions. But the non-compliance of the provisions of section 66 of the Act does not find a place in these sections, namely, 114 to 121 of the Act Section 122 of the Act reads as follows: "122. General provisions for punishment of offences- ‘Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule, or regulation thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punished with tine which may extend to two hundred rupees." It is therefore manifest that non-compliance with a direction of the nature contained in Exhibit P-4 is not made penal by any provision of the Act. Section 122 of the Act lays down that contravention of any provision of the Act, Rules or Regulations under the Act incurs penalty if no other penalty is provided for that offence. The extent of penalty is also prescribed. It has been noticed that no other provision making non-compliance of a direction or an order under section 66 of the Act penal is found in this Act. Therefore if it is held that non-compliance of a direction issued by a person under section 66 of the Act is contravention of the provisions of the Act, then section 122 of the Act applies squarely. It is plain that what the petitioners have done is not to comply with the directions issued by respondent 1-Secretary of the Marketing Committee. Therefore if it is held that non-compliance of a direction issued by a person under section 66 of the Act is contravention of the provisions of the Act, then section 122 of the Act applies squarely. It is plain that what the petitioners have done is not to comply with the directions issued by respondent 1-Secretary of the Marketing Committee. They have not contravened any of the provisions of the Act. If any of the provisions of the Act had laid down that it was incumbent on the petitioners to produce account books whenever called upon to do so by the Secretary empowered under section 66 of the Act, then section 122 of the Act would have been applicable. This provision would be clear when sections 63 and 109 (3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Societies Act’), are looked into. These provisions deal with a similar kind of situation. Section 63 of the Societies Act which appears in Chapter VIII deals with Audit, Inquiry, Inspection and Surcharge. Section 63 (3) reads as follows: “63. Audit:- (1) * * * (2) * * * * (3) The Registrar or the authorised person shall at all times have access to all the books, accounts, documents, papers, securities, cash and other properties, belonging to or in the custody of, the society any may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, papers, securities, cash or other properties, to produce the same at any public office at the head-quartets of the society or any branch thereof.” Section 109 of the Societies Act deals with offences and appears in Chapter XIV of the Societies Act. Section 109 (3) reads as follows: “109. Section 109 (3) reads as follows: “109. Offences:- (1) * * * * (2) * * * * (3) A co-operative society or an officer or member thereof wilfully making a false return or furnishing false information, or any person wilfully or without any reasonably excuse disobeying any summons, requisition or lawful written order issued under the provisions of this Act or wilfully not furnishing any information or handing over any, documents or property required from him by a person or body of persons authorised in this behalf under the provisions of this Act, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.” A plain reading of these two provisions in my opinion makes the position of law absolutely clear. 8. In the absence of a provision similar to section 109 (3) of the Societies Act, in the Act, it cannot at all be held that the petitioners committed an offence by not complying with the direction contained in Exhibit P-4. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence passed on them have to be set aside. Hence this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners i.e., Accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C.No. 556 of 1973 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1974 are set aside. The petitioners are acquitted.