JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision under sec. 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order of the Munsif Magistrate, Shri Karanpur, dated 20-3-79, for quashing the charge of the petitioner, as also for setting aside the order of the court dated 20-3-79 under sec. 258 Cr. P.C. 2. The facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Keshrisinghpur, through its Secretary filed a complaint against Shri Mahaveer Prasad Baid as Supervisor, Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur. Actually, two licences have been obtained from the complainant by both these companies, i.e.. Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur and B.C.M, Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur. It has been recorded in both these licences that they will he represented by Shri Mahaveer Prasad Baid as their representative. The licence issued in favour of B.C.M. Oil Mills, Keshrisinghpur is bearing No. 56. where as the licence issued in favour of Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factory, Keshrisinghpur. is bearing No. 1. It is alleged that cotton seed is a regulated commodity, on the sale and purchase of which, the complainant is entitled to charge cess (tax) advalorem at the rate of 1%. It has been alleged by the complainant that accused No. 1, i.e., Birla Mills Ginning and Pressing Factor, Keshrisinghpur, sold cotton seeds worth-Rs. 15,76,076. IIP. to accused No. 2, i.e., B.C.M. Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur between the period of 22-11-75 to 18-12-76, It has enclosed with the complaint the Schedule containing the details of those sales. It has, therefore, been contended that the accused persons should have paid cess (tax) to the complainant amounting to Rs. 15750. 76P. Which they have failed to do and, therefore, they are liable to prosecution under Section 28 (2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) because the cess is recoverable from them under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1961 along with Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963), 3. While the complaint was pending before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Karanpur, an application was moved by the complainant to drop the proceedings against accused No. 2, i. e., B.C.M. Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur. While the complaint was pending before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Karanpur, an application was moved by the complainant to drop the proceedings against accused No. 2, i. e., B.C.M. Oil Mills Keshrisinghpur. That application was accepted by the learned lower court on 25-7-78 and consequently, the proceedings against accused No. 2 were dropped. The learned lower court, however, proceeded against accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 filed an application under sec. 258 of the Cr. P. C. for stay of these proceedings. That application was, however, rejected by the learned lower court and the learned lower court further read over the statement of allegation to the accused and obtained his explanation. It is against these two acts of the learned lower court that the petitioner has come up in revision.' 4. I have gone through the record of the case and have heard Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also Mr. T. S. Champawat, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. B.C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has already paid the cess/fee for purchase of the cotton made in the Mandi area. The cotton seed is extracted out from the cotton fibre due processing undertaken is factory of accused No. Once the tax has been paid on raw cotton, no further tax can be levied on cotton seed, because there is no provision in law for a dual tax. In this connection, he drew my attention to the provisions of Rule 58 (2), which provides that the cess levied as per sub-rule (1) shall not be levied more than once on agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. v. State of U. P. reported in R. 1980 SC 114 . This was a decision of their Lordships in a bunch of writ petitions pending before it involving a similar question of law. In para 13 of this judgment, their Lordships have been pleased to lay down that there cannot be any multipoint levy of market fee in the same market area. All the four clauses of clause (b) are mutually exclusive. In para 13 of this judgment, their Lordships have been pleased to lay down that there cannot be any multipoint levy of market fee in the same market area. All the four clauses of clause (b) are mutually exclusive. If the produce is purchased from a producer directly the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee in accordance with sub-clause (2). But if the trader sells the same produce or any product of the same produce to another trader neither the seller-trader nor the purchaser-trader can be made to pay the market fee under sub-clause (3). The provisions of rule 58 (2) are similar to the provision of Sec. 17(3) of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. It is true that there cannot be any dual taxation by the Mandi Keshrisinghpur under the provisions of Act of 1964, but there is no material on record to conclude that any cess of fee has been paid by the accused on the raw cotton purchased by it. There is nothing on record to show whether this raw cotton was purchased by the accused from outside the Mandi area or from within the Mandi area The resolution of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Keshrisinghpur shows that the accused took the plea that it has been purchasing cotton from outside the Mandi area and, therefore, no cess is payable from it. Be that as it may, this is a disputed question of fact whether it a case of double taxation or whether the raw cotton has been purchased from outside the Mandi area, therefore, no cess has been paid and hence, the cess is leviable on the cotton seeds sold by accused No. 1 to accused No. 2 and on such disputed questions of fact, evidence will have to be led. Such matters cannot be decided in this revision petition where there is no material on record to arrive at any definite finding. This by itself is a good ground to proceed with the trial in this case. 6. Mr. B.R. Arora submitted that the factories of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are situated outside the Municipal limits to Keshrisinghpur. Again, there is no material on record that the factories of these two accused are situated outside the Municipal limits of Keshrisinghpur. This by itself is a good ground to proceed with the trial in this case. 6. Mr. B.R. Arora submitted that the factories of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are situated outside the Municipal limits to Keshrisinghpur. Again, there is no material on record that the factories of these two accused are situated outside the Municipal limits of Keshrisinghpur. Such an objection was neither raised before the learned lower court, nor it forms part of the memo of revision. This is an altogether new argument, which has been advanced at the bar by Mr. Arora and as this argument will also require evidence whether the factory of accused No. 1 is situated within the Municipal limits of Keshrisinghpur town or not. I am unable to arive at any definite finding about it in absence of the relevant evidence. It is a mixed question of law and fact and deserves an enquiry. 7. Mr. Arora has next submitted that it is not a sale. Both these concerns are sister concerns. Their factories are situated in the same premised. The cotton fibre is utilised by accused No. 1 and cotton seed is transferred to accused No. 2 for extracting oil from it. It is only the case of transfer and not of sale. Prima-faciely that both these concerns have got separate licences from the complainant and, therefore, they have to be treated as two concerns and this is what the learned lower court has precisely held. If they form part of the same organisation and they are only two different departments of one concern or whether they are two concerns has also to be clarified by leading evidence, Presently, the situation is that they have obtained separate licences from the complainant and, therefore, they cannot be treated as two departments of a single concern and hence, this objection of Mr. Arora is also over-ruled, 8. Mr, Arora next submitted that when he has disputed that it is not a sale, then the question should have been referred for decision to the Director of Agricultural, as per the provisions of Section 34 because he has disputed the liability to pay this amount. Section 34 now here provides that this reference has to be made by Krishi Upaj Mandi. Section 34 now here provides that this reference has to be made by Krishi Upaj Mandi. If the accused is aggrieved by any order of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Keshrisinghpur, then he should have made a reference to the Director himself. Even in the rules no provision exists that such a reference has to be made by the complainant only. I have already observed above that if accused No 1 and 2 are held to be two independent concerns, then the sale of any article after processing by one concern to another on which no cess has been paid earlier prima faciely amounts to a sale and, therefore, this objection also can be decided only after recording evidence. 9. Mr. Arora next submitted that according to rule 59 (2) of the Rules of 1963, the cess referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce concerned. It is only when the purchaser of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, the cess shall be paid by the seller. He has submitted that initially, the complaint was filed against accused No. 2 but later on the complainant made a request to the Court to drop the proceedings against accused No. 2. It is accused No. 2, who is a purchaser in this case and it was the liability of accused No. 2 to have paid the cess and so, no prosecution can be launched against accused No. 1. In this respect, he has submitted that if there is any non-compliance of bye-laws framed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti under any of the provisions of law then no prosecution can be launched for the non-compliance of the bye-laws under Sec 28 (2) of the Act of 1961. I have candidly considered his argument and has gone through the provisions of the Act. Section 17 of the Act of 1961 provides that the market committee shall collect market fees from the licences in the prescribed manner on agricultural produce bought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, subject to a maximum of Re. 1/- per rupees one hundred worth of agricultural produce. Thus, the Act provides that the market fees can be levied either on the seller or on the buyer. 1/- per rupees one hundred worth of agricultural produce. Thus, the Act provides that the market fees can be levied either on the seller or on the buyer. Rule 59 (2) provides that the cess referred to in sub-rule (I) of Rule 58 shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce concerned, It is made payable by the seller only when the purchaser of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 provides that a market area committee shall collect cess on agricultural produce bought and sold in the market area at such rates as may be specified by the Government by way of notification. Thus, section 17 read with rule 58 of the Rules of 1963 are charging provisions about collection of cess. Rule 59 (2) provides that by whom the cess has to be paid. In addition to this, it will be useful to notice rule 61 of the Rules of 1963, which provides that the mode of collection of cess shall be prescribed by the market committee in the bye-laws. The bye laws have to be framed under the powers conferred on the committee under sec. 37 of the Act of 1961 and it has been held in Bhikam Chand v. State, reported in AIR 1986 Raj. 142 that Bye laws framed by the Market committee about the levy of fees should conform to the rules frames by the Government. Mr. Arora has submitted that bye-laws framed by the complainant are not in consonance with the rule 59 (2) of the Rules of 1963. I am afraid, I cannot agree with this submission of Mr. Arora. The reason being that bye-laws have been framed by complainant with the prior approval of the Director of Agriculture. Article 25 of the bye-laws relate to the collection of the Mandi cess. As per rule 58 of Rules of 1963 cess will be leviable at the rate of 1% on all the agricultural produce sold or purchased in the Mandi committee area. Article 25 of the bye-laws relate to the collection of the Mandi cess. As per rule 58 of Rules of 1963 cess will be leviable at the rate of 1% on all the agricultural produce sold or purchased in the Mandi committee area. In sub-clause (2) of Article 25 of the bye-laws, it has provided that brokers of category 'ka' and the traders doing their business in Mandi committee area, will collect the cess from the purchasers and it has further provided that it will be the duty of the purchaser to pay that cess to the Broker or the dealer, as the case may be. Thus, this bye-law provides only for the mode of collection of the cess. It is not against the provisions of rule (59-2) of the rules of 1963. Even this bye-law provides that the cess has to paid by the purchaser and not by the seller. The dealer or the broker only has to collect this cess from the purchaser and has to remit it to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and thus the bye-laws do not contravene any of the provisions of the Rules framed by the State Government. The bye-laws have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred on Krishi Upaj Mandi as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1961, with the prior approval of the Director of Agriculture. Moreover, they have been framed under rule 61 of the Rules 1963 and thus, there non-compliance when read alongwith the provisions of section 17 as also rule 58 and rule 59 of the rules of 1963 make such a non-compliance an offence punishable under Section 28(2) of the Act. 10. It is true that the complainant has requested for dropping the proceedings against accused No. 2 It is further true that the accused No. 2 being buyer of the cotton seed, cess was payable by it, if the transaction is considered to be a sale transacted in the Mandi Committee area, but that is not the end of the matter. A duty has also been imposed on the trader who sells any thing in the Mandi Committee area, to recover the cess from the buyer and to remit it to the Krishi Upaj Mandi and when the seller has not done that he can be prosecuted independently, even without impleading the known purchaser. A duty has also been imposed on the trader who sells any thing in the Mandi Committee area, to recover the cess from the buyer and to remit it to the Krishi Upaj Mandi and when the seller has not done that he can be prosecuted independently, even without impleading the known purchaser. There may be cases where purchaser might have paid the cess to the trader and if the trader does not remit that cess to the complainant Mandi, then he can be prosecuted as an accused without implicating the purchaser as an accused. Thus, simply because the proceedings against accused No. 2 have been dropped, it does not absolve accused No. 1 of his responsibility to collect the cess and to remit it to the complainant and, therefore, this argument also docs not find favour with me. 11. Mr. Arora next argued that Shri Mahaveer Prasad in only a supervisor of accused No. 1 and, therefore, without impleading the company, i.e., Birla Mills Ginning & Pressing Factory, he could not have been prosecuted. He has further submitted that there are no allegations in the complaint to the effect that Shri Mahaveer Prasad is in the conscious management of this company and is responsible for this sale. Unless these allegations are contained in such a complaint, no prosecution can be launched against Shri Mahaveer Prasad. In this respect, he tried to draw an analogy from certain decisions of the High Courts and their Lordships of the Supreme Court, which are based on the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as also concerning the sale of insecticides. 12. I am making a mention of these authorities on which he has placed reliance. They are as under : State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh, reported in A.I.R. 1971 SC 447 ; Avinashilal & another v. State of Rajasthan-reported in Cr.LR 1980 Raj. 515 ; and Lachhi Ram v. Inspector, insecticides, Sri Ganganagar-reported in RLW 1979 at p. 149 . I have gone through these rulings. They relate to cases where sanction for prosecution has to be obtained from a competent authority and before issuing the sanction, the competent authority must apply its mind whether a particular person is in the conscious management of a company or a firm and whether he should also be prosecuted along with the company or the firm as the case may be. No similar provision exists in the Act of 1961. This Act makes punishable any intentional non-payment cess by a trader-may be a buyer, may be a seller. Now whether the non-payment is intentional, is a matter of proof and at this stage without evidence, it cannot be decided that whether the non-payment was intentional or was based on the honest belief that these two concerns are only different departments of the same company. But this much is clear that intentional non-payment of cess per se is punishable and so, no application of mind for launching the prosecution is essential, as provided by the Essential Commodities Act and Insecticides Act. He has also referred to a single Bench decision of this Court in P. R. Neelkantham v. State . I have gone through all the aforesaid authorities in detail. All the authorities relates to the special provisions of Essential Commodities Act as also Insecticides Act, wherein sanction of prosecution is essential which is totally missing in this case. In the licences that have been granted in favour of the accused persons, it has been mentioned that they will be represented by Shri Mahaveer Prasad and it is because of this that the prosecution has been launched against Shri Mahaveer Prasad Baid. In the licence, it has been mentioned as under : S No. Name Fathers Name Address 1. Mahavaer Prasad Baid Shri Banarasilal Baid - "Anugya-Patra"It is clear that Shri Mahaveer Prasad has bound himself to represent the licences and, therefore, prima-faciely it appears that the licence has been prosecuted through him. Ultimately, whether he will be responsible or not after the trial is a mixed question of law and fact. The observations made in this revision petition will have no bearing on the decision of the case. This Court has only prima-faciely examined the record of the case. No evidence has been led in the case and so, at this stage, any observation made in this order will have no bearing on the final decision of the case. 13. Mr. T S. Champawat submitted that the order of the learned lower court not to stay the proceedings is absolutely legal and correct and no revision should have been filed against it. 13. Mr. T S. Champawat submitted that the order of the learned lower court not to stay the proceedings is absolutely legal and correct and no revision should have been filed against it. In this respect, he has submitted that sec 258 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the court has power to stop the proceedings in certain summons cases, but that section applies only to those summons cases which are instituted otherwise than upon complaint made to a Magistrate. This case has been instituted on a complaint made to a Magistrate and, therefore, Sec. 258 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Mangal Prasad v. Ananji Ranchhoddas, reported in Cr.L.J. 1983 P. 309 , wherein it has been held by a learned judge that the power under Section 258 of the code to stop the proceedings at any stage must be exercised sparingly and only if exceptional circumstances appears. It has further been held that such powers can be exercised in cases, which have not been instituted on private complaint. 14. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this revision petition and it is, hereby, rejected. The file of the trial court may be sent to the trial court for proceeding further with the case.Revision Rejected. *******