M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel who represents the appellant- apmc in both these appeals, which concern a common point of law. The dispute pertains to the APMC having seized two consignments, one of pepper and the other of arecanut on the ground that the requisite market fee had not been paid and the contention was that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the party who was transporting the goods in question. The goods were therefore seized in exercise of the powers under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) act, 1966, which empowers the APMC to seize that quantity of the goods as are sufficient to cover the market fee and penalty. The reason why the consignment was seized was because, according to the APMG officials when the driver of the vehicle was questioned, since he was unable to account for the goods, more importantly, for the payment of the market fee, that he abandoned the vehicle and ran away. In any event, the greater part of the consignment has been returned under a bond by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, except of one bag of each of the commodity. ( 2 ) MR. Sridharan, the learned Counsel who represents the APMC submits that the quantum of fee plus penalty involved is not very large, but that the real issue which falls for determination is the question as to whether the APMC was acting within its powers, because the learned single Judge who had disposed off the two writ petitions has taken a view that the necessary ingredients of Sections 65 and 66 not having been satisfied that the seizure in question was bad. ( 3 ) THE present appeals have been directed against these orders but since the point of law involved is common, we have heard the learned counsels on both sides and propose to dispose off the appeals through a common order. ( 3 ) THE present appeals have been directed against these orders but since the point of law involved is common, we have heard the learned counsels on both sides and propose to dispose off the appeals through a common order. ( 4 ) THE respondents who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge had in the first instance contended that the seizure of the entire consignment was unjustified and that even assuming that Sections 65 to 67 read cumulatively confer the authority on the officials of the Market Committee to effect a seizure on the suspicion that the requisite payments had not been made or that they entertained any other serious doubts with regard to the origin etc. , of the goods, that it was only permissible to seize that much quantity of the goods that were commensurate with the tax, levy or fee payable on that consignment. Normally, we would have straightaway upheld this submission but there are certain angles to the case demonstrated by the learned Counsel who represents the APMC who has prefixed his submissions with the argument that the Court must envisage instances where attempts are made to evade or attempts are made to deceive the authorities and that these are precisely the situations which need to be visualised by the court. Coming to the facts of the present case, learned Counsel Mr. Sridharan submits that when the driver of the jeep was questioned in the first instance he realised that he would be apprehended because he was on the wrong side of the law and therefore abandoned the vehicle and fled and the submission is that such a conduct necessarily justifies the taking charge of the consignment, and Mr. Sridharan hastens to add that the rightful owner or the party from whom the possession was taken in such circumstances is duty-bound to immediately approach the committee, either satisfy the Committee that no breach has taken place or to pay the requisite fee plus penalty and retrieve the goods and that if this does not happen, the Market Committee will act in consonance with the law by auctioning that much of the produce only that is necessary to realise the amounts or fee that has been effected by and large, penalty, etc. , or in other words, the dues of the Market Committee and that the balance of the goods would be returned to the lawful owner on production of requisite proof. ( 5 ) MR. Nataraj, who represents the original petitioners and respondents before us, has submitted that the authorities of the APMC in both these instances have exceeded their jurisdiction by seizing the whole of the consignment and secondly, seizing the consignment before any transaction has taken place. Mr. Nataraj's submission is that if the goods were merely in transit that there was no justification for the seizure at all because the liability to pay any fee would arise only on a sale transaction taking place. Learned Counsel gives a typical example by pointing out that these were non-perishable goods and that if the goods had been brought into the market area tentatively with the intention of selling them, provided the seller got a buyer for the whole consignment and secondly, provided he was able to realise the prescribed price, and if the seller decided not to effect any transactions that there would be zero financial liability and the seizure would be rendered bad. In our considered view, this example is totally inappropriate because the charging section very clearly envisages that a liability arises when the goods are brought into the market area and it must be presumed that they are brought there with the intention of their being sold. In the unlikely event of no sale taking place or the party taking the goods back, we do not envisage any difficulty because it is certainly open to the purchaser to satisfy the authorities that the very goods are going back, no sale has taken place and that consequently there exists no liability. What we need to add is that these are extreme situations and these are the possibilities that arise in the rarest of the rare cases and such examples are not to be used when interpreting the section in relation to the normal day-to-day transactions. What we need to add is that these are extreme situations and these are the possibilities that arise in the rarest of the rare cases and such examples are not to be used when interpreting the section in relation to the normal day-to-day transactions. These are exceptional situations and in exceptional situations it is always open to the party to satisfy the authorities that no liability has arisen, no fee is payable and we are more than confident that where the party is honest there are no reasons for suspicion that the authorities are not going to misuse or abuse any of more than confident that where the party is honest there are no reasons for suspicion that the authorities are not going to misuse or abuse any of the powers. If at all, such misuse or abuse takes place there are always appropriate legal remedies open. While interpreting the sections, however, we need to go by the normal day-to-day transactions and where the section vests the liability on the goods coming into the market area, it will have to be held that the authorities have every right if they have reason to believe that there has been evasion, to even detain goods, to interrogate the persons in-charge of them and to effect seizures in keeping with the provisions of the law. ( 6 ) THE interpretation of the learned Single Judge is too narrow and it is also incorrect insofar as it would give scope for evasion rather than for observance of the law. We also take note of the fact that in the present instances as far as the case relating to the pepper is concerned, where the contention was raised that the petitioner was in fact the grower and the Market Committee has investigated that particular contention, it was found that the petitioner possessed hardly 1 acre of land, that he had about 214 young plants which were about 1 year old, that the estimated yield from all of them on a generous basis was much less than what the petitioner was found with and in this background, there was more that -. alid justification for the seizure. Mr. alid justification for the seizure. Mr. Nataraj sought to justify the quantity by pointing out that items like pepper and arecanut are not perishable, that they can be stored for long periods of time, sold in small quantities and that consequently, these sort of investigations would lead to wrong conclusions. Our only answer to this is, that the onus lies on the party who is in possession of the material and it is that party who is required to satisfy the Market Committee with regard to the source, quantity etc. , and it is only in extreme situations, such as the present one, where a false explanation was put forward that the Committee was required to verify and that when this was done, the explanation was found to be false. This only amplifies the point that we have made in this judgment which is to the effect that the Courts will always have to interpret and uphold the law in a manner that protects those who observe the law, as it should be, and that it is equally necessary, that the law should not be interpreted and given effect to in a manner that assists or gives protection to persons who are hell-bent on evading the law and on breaching it. ( 7 ) IN our view, the action on the part of the APMC in both these cases was justified having regard to the facts on record thereby the APMC has retained one bag of each of the commodity. The only direction that we are issuing is to the effect that it is still open to the persons who claim to be the owners to satisfy the Committee, if they can, that there were no dues payable and if on the other hand, the Committee comes to the conclusion that there is a prescribed liability to the APMC then it would be within the powers of APMC to dispose off the detained material to adjust the amount due to the APMC and return the balance if any to the owners. If the petitioners so desire, they shall approach the APMC within 3 months from today and point out whatever they so desire in their defence. Mr. Nataraj who represents the original petitioners points out that the greater part of the consignments have been returned under the interim orders of this Court. If the petitioners so desire, they shall approach the APMC within 3 months from today and point out whatever they so desire in their defence. Mr. Nataraj who represents the original petitioners points out that the greater part of the consignments have been returned under the interim orders of this Court. The bonds executed by the original petitioners would stand cancelled on the Market Committee taking a decision as is required of them, provided there are no additional amounts due from the petitioners in which case, the petitioners will have to discharge the liability. ( 8 ) WITH these observations, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge in both these cases is set aside. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .