Judgment.- These revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the questions of law and fact involved in them are similar. It would be sufficient if the facts in Criminal Revision Case No. 75 of 1978 are stated. 2. The petitioner in Cr.R.C. No. 75 of 1978 as well as the petitioners in other revisions are merchants carrying on business; within the limits of Hindupur Municipality. The petitioner was purchasing notified agricultural produce outside the Hindupur market area and was selling the notified agricultural produce, so purchased, within the limits of the market area of the Hindupur Market Committee. He was prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Market Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) punishable under section 23 of the said Act. 3. The case of the complainant was that the accused being a licensee of the Hindupur Market Committee did not pay market fees when called upon to do so by the Market Committee and as such he has contravened the provisions, of section 12! of the Act, which is punishable under section 23 of the Act. 4. The trial Court convicted the accused of the offence punishable under section 23 of the Act and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Similar order was passed in other cases out of which the other revisions arise. 5. The main contention advanced by Mr. Upendralal Waghray, appearing for the petitioners is that a perusal of section 23 of the Act would show that only when a licensee fails to pay fees levied under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, he is liable to be punished with fine. Submits Mr. Waghray that in this case fees has not at all been levied so far and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable of the offence punishable under section 23 of the Act. Another contention which is advanced by Mr. Waghray is that having regard to the provisions of section 12 of the Act, the petitioner is not at all a purchaser of notified agricultural produce within the Hindupur market area. Another contention which is advanced by Mr. Waghray is that having regard to the provisions of section 12 of the Act, the petitioner is not at all a purchaser of notified agricultural produce within the Hindupur market area. The petitioner purchased rice from outside the Hindupur market area but he has certainly sold it within the market area of the Hindupur Market Committee and as such, it is only if the petitioner is unable to identify the purchasers he is liable to pay the market fees. Having regard to the various Control Orders, the petitioners has orders from the Tahsildar to sell the required number of bags to a particular purchaser and on the basis of this indent by the Tahsildar, the notified agricultural produce has been sold to various purchasers, both retailers and wholesale merchants within the Hindupur market area. Therefore, Mr. Waghray submits that no enquiry whatsoever was held to find out as to how much market fees was leviable in the case of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner was in a position to identify purchasers so that the market fees could be collected from them and in the absence of which the liability would fall on the petitioner himself. Mr. Waghray has cited a ruling of my learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J., in Wholesale Foodgrains Dealers Association v. Agricultural Market Committee1. It may be noted that only one writ petition was filed against the Hindupur Market Committee by these petitioners after the receipt of summons from the criminal Court on the basis of the present complaint. 6. Mr.Y. Bhaskar Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, strenuously contends that the market fee, right or wrong, has been levied against the petitioner, as it would be evident from Exhibits P-24 to P-32 on the "basis of the amounts mentioned in the sale tills submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon as per notice Exhibit P-33 dated 9th November, 1973, to furnish correct addresses, names and numbers of licences of purchasers etc., which the petitioner has not complied with, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court was incorrect in convicting the accused. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by Mr. Waghray has to be accepted in this case. 7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the contention advanced by Mr. Waghray has to be accepted in this case. In order to appreciate the point of law involved in this case, it is necessary to read sections 12 and 23 of the Act. Section 12 reads as follows: "12. (1) The Market Committee shall levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at such rate not exceeding one rupee as may be specified in the bye-laws for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration". Sub-section (2) of section 12 specifically provides that the fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or product of livestock: Provided that where the purchaser cannot be identified, the fee shall be paid by the seller. A reading of the above section would show that it is the Market Committee which is empowered to levy fee at the rate prescribed in the section or according to the bye-law, on any notified agricultural produce which is rice in the instant case. This levy is made either on the sale or on the purchase within the market area of the respective Market Committee. That is to say, if a licensee! of a Market Committee sells a notified agricultural produce within the market area or purchases a notified agricultural produce within the market area, then only the Market Committee is empowered to levy fee known as market fee. In case of sale, sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act, provides that initially it is the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce who will be liable to pay market fee but the proviso to that sub-section states that if the purchaser cannot be identified, the market fee will have to be paid by the seller. 8. Section 23 of the Act provides for penalty. 8. Section 23 of the Act provides for penalty. It provides as follows: "Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 7 or fails to pay the fees levied under sub-section (1) of section 12, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.............." The latter limb of this section is not relevant for purposes of these revisions. 9. From a reading of section 23 of the Act, it becomes evident that it is incumbent that before prosecution is launched and a person is convicted of the offence punishable under section 23, market fee should be levied under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act by the Market Committee. Therefore, until the market fee is levied under sub-section (1) of section 12, it is not possible for the purchaser to know the exact amount that he is liable to pay. Once the market fee is levied, the seller of the notified agricultural produce would have to identify the purchaser thereof and if the seller does not identify the purchaser to whom he has sold the notified agricultural produce he will be liable to pay as provided under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. Further, if he does not identify the purchasers, nor pays the fee levied then he will be liable for the offence punishable under section 23 of the Act. If this position is kept in mind and is made applicable to the facts of this case, it would be evident that no market fee whatsoever has been levied so far. 10. The relevant document for purposes of this case is Exhibit P-33, dated 9th November, 1973. A perusal thereof would show that this was a notice issued by the Secretary of the Hindupur Market Committee with regard to letters written by the petitioner in Cr.R. C. No. 75 of 1978, which letters are dated 13th September, 1973, 1st October, 1973 and 26th October, 1973. A perusal thereof would show that this was a notice issued by the Secretary of the Hindupur Market Committee with regard to letters written by the petitioner in Cr.R. C. No. 75 of 1978, which letters are dated 13th September, 1973, 1st October, 1973 and 26th October, 1973. In the said notice i.e., Exhibit P-33, the petitioner was directed to pay market fee due on notified commodities purchased or sold by him so far to the Committee or give correct particulars of purchasers i.e., name of the purchaser, full address, licence number, commodity, quantity and value of the produce etc., with reference to sale bills from 1st November, 1971 to 31st October, 1973 monthwise separately on or before 20th November, 1973 failing which prosecution will be launched against the petitioner under section 23 of the Act. It would also be noticed that it was the Secretary of Market Committee who had asked the petitioner to pay the fee mentioned in Exhibit P-33 on the sale bills submitted by him and not the Market Committee. In other words, Exhibit P-33 would show that the petitioner was called upon to pay the market fee due on the notified commodities purchased or sold by him or to give the names and the correct address etc., of the purchasers to whom the notified agricultural produce was sold, failing which prosecution would be launched against him. It would be noted that nowhere in this notice the amount of market fee that has been levied on the basis of the sale bills from 1st November, 1971 to 30th October, 1973 which were submitted by the petitioner has been mentioned. In other words, the petitioner submitted sale bills from 1st November, 1971 to 30th October, 1973 monthwise and separately. Without levying any market fee thereon on the basis of sales made by the petitioner within the market area of the Hindupur Market Committee to the purchasers within the market area, he is called upon to pay the fee which has not at all been fixed by the Hindupur Market Committee and he is threatened with prosecution in case ,he does not pay the amount before 20th November, 1973. The next document is Exhibit P-34 dated 16th December, 1974. The next document is Exhibit P-34 dated 16th December, 1974. It is necessary to note the date of Exhibit P-34, because a perusal thereof would show that in this notice the petitioner was informed that inspite of repeated demands he has not produced his accounts to the Market Committee on exports or sales for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and from 1st April, 1974 to 31st November, 1974. Hence, the petitioner was requested to produce his accounts for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to the Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee in the office, within seven days from receipts of the said notice "for assessment of market fees due to the Market Committees for the notified commodity i.e., for rice on sales as per the accounts submitted by the petitioner. From this notice which is of 16th December, 1974 it would be evident that even by 16th December, 1974 the petitioner had not produced his accounts and consequently no fee was levied by the Market Committee. Having regard to what is stated in Exhibits P-33 and P-34, it would not be possible to say that market fees has already been levied and demand notices Exhibits P-24 to P-32 issued. It would feus be seen that without levying any fee as evident from, Exhibit P-34 dated 16th December, 1974, wherein the petitioner was called upon to submit his accounts from 1971 to 1974 for purpose’s of assessment of market fee, how Exhibit P-24 dated 27th March, 1974 to Exhibit P-32 dated 7th February, 1975 which are of anterior dated to Exhibit P-34 could be issued to the petitioner without levying the market fee. Therefore, the issue of Exhibits P-24 to P-32, would in no way cast any liability on the petitioner for purposes of launching prosecution because, as pointed out earlier, having regard to the provisions of section 12 read with section 23 of the Act, fee will have to be levied in the first instance by fee Market Committee and the petitioner should then be called upon to pay market fee so levied by the Market Committee; and in case the" petitioner points out the purchasers to whom he has sold the notified produce he is absolved from payment market fee and the purchasers would be liable to pay the fee so levied by the Market Committee. In case the seller does not identify the purchasers, obviously, then under section 12(2) of the Act the liability would be cast upon the seller to pay the market fee as levied by the Market Committee. What energies from the above discussion of the documentary evidence is that no market fee whatsoever has been levied against the petitioner. It is for the first time painted out in paragraph 14 of the complaint as follows: "But the accused has failed to remit the market fee as per the monthly transactions reports submitted for the period from 1st November, 1971 to 31st November, 1974 as specified below on sale or purchases made within fee notified area: Market fee due to be paid to Market Committee 1971 November to 1974 November...... Rs. 5,184-98". To my mind, this is not the proper way of levying the market fee as contemplated under section 12 of the Act. The petitioner’s account will have to be gone into by the Market Committee and then only on the basis of the accounts market fee will be levied by the Market Committee as envisaged under section 12 of the Act. Thereafter the petitioner will be called upon to identify the purchasers and if he does not do so he will be liable to pay the market fee. If the petitioner fails to pay the market fee then prosecution will be launched against him for contravention of the provisions of section 12 of fee Act punishable under section 23 of the Act. 11. Hence, these revisions are allowed and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge.