Judgment : This appeal is by the Superintendent, Coimbatore Market Committee, Perundurai against the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erode in S.T.R.No.382 of 1984 acquitting the accused of a charge under Sec.25(a) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act. According to the prosecution, the accused Kandasamy purchased 987 quintals of paddy for Rs. 2,04,160.50 and for that he has not paid fee to the Market Committee payable under Sec.18 of the Act. The accused contended that he has not purchased paddy within the notified area, but he has purchased paddy from outside the State, i.e., Maharashtra and therefore, he is not liable to pay fee under Sec.18. In this connection, the accused filed Exs.D-1 to D-8 as agreements of sale executed between himself and the Traders of Mahar-ashtra State. However, the contention of the prosecution is that delivery of the goods was taken within the notified area and payment was also made within the notified area and therefore, even though paddy was purchased outside the State the accused is liable to pay the fee. The genuineness of Exs.D-1 to D-8 was also disputed by the prosecution. But the trial court held that Exs.D-1 to D-8 agreements are true and it further held that even if delivery had been taken within the notified area and payment was made there, the sale had been concluded as per Exs.D-1 to D-8 outside the State and therefore, no question of payment of fee under Sec.18 arises. On this finding, the trial court acquitted the accused. 2. On a perusal of the evidence find no reason to differ from the finding of the court below that Exs.D-1 to D-8 agreements are genuine. That being the case, there is no doubt that the sale was concluded outside the State. Only because paddy which was sent from outside the State through rail was taken delivery within the notified area and payment was made there, it cannot be said that the sale was concluded in the notified area. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.