JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur on 31.5.83. 2. The respondent No. 2 was prosecuted for having contravend provisions of Section 4 and 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Product Market Act, 1961 punishable under section 28 of the Act. After recording the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate held that if the contravention was done it was M/s. Ramdhan Mohanlal and the prosecution has not been able to establish as to how accused Bhanwarlal was concerned with the affairs of the firm. 3. It may be that Bhanwarlal is the father of Rampal who was proprietor of the firm but by that it cannot be presumed that Bhanwarlal conducted business of the firm. Under Section 4 of the Act a person can be convicted when he does business without obtaining proper licence. As the appellant failed to prove that the respondent was the person who conducted business in the 'Mandi' area, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered. 4. The duty to deposit the market fee arises from Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1963. As it was not established that the market fee was recovered by the respondent, he could not be convicted for the contravention of Section 18 also. 5. Having gone through the judgment of the trial court I do not find that the judgment of the trial court is manifestly erroneously or wholly unsustainable. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******