Short Note : On behalf of the Agricultural Produce Market, Sakti complaints were filed against the non-applicant No.2 in each case that it had contravened provisions of S.17 of the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, and the bye-laws made thereunder, which was punishable under section 29 of the said Act. According to the complainant all persons, dealing in scheduled agricultural produce had to obtain a licence and had to pay mandi fees at the specified rates. Mill owners had to take a separate licence The non-applicant No. 2 in each case is running a rice mill at Baradwar in Sakti tahsil and dealing in paddy which is a scheduled agriculture produce but the non applicants took a licence for trade and not rice mill and they did not pay mandi fees nor submitted accounts as per provisions despite notices by the complainant in that behalf. A market was duly established and notified at Sakti for all villages of Sakti Tahsil by notification dated 17-2-1969. The complaints were registered and the non-applicants put up their appearances and urged that they have not contravened any provisions because M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act was not applicable to Baradwar where their rice mills are located. Accepting this objection, the learned trial Magistrate without recording any evidence, dropped the proceedings under section 249 of the Code. Held : Section 249 of the Old Code has no application to these complaint cases. The section only applied to cases instituted otherwise than on complaint. These cases being instituted on complaints, section 249 is not applicable and the trial Magistrate could not have dropped the proceedings. Since the offence under section 29 of the said Act is punishable only with fine and since all such offences are to be tried summarily under section 32 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate for the offences under this Act is that provided for summons cases in view of section 262 of the Cr. P. Code. Section 244 of the Code required that if the accused did not admit the offence, then the evidence of the complainant has to be recorded and then under section 245 the accused can be acquitted if he is found not guilty. Therefore, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings against the non-applicant No.2 in each case without recording evidence. The orders are clearly illegal. Therefore, the trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings against the non-applicant No.2 in each case without recording evidence. The orders are clearly illegal. Moreover, by notification dated 17-2-1969, a market was established at Sakti for all villages in Sakti Thasil. Undoubtedly, Baradwar is in Sakti Tahsil and, as such, all villages in Sakti Tahsil came within the jurisdiction of the complainant for the purposes of the Act. The decision in Md. Hussain Gulam v. The State of Bombay and others, AIR 1962 SC 97 is clearly distinguishable because there the village in question was found to be not covered by the notification in question. AIR 1962 SC 97 distinguished. Revision allowed.