Judgment : 1. This Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 12.4.2006 rendered in C.A. No. 68 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, special Judge for E.C. Act Cases, Thanjavur. 2. The gist of the case is as follows: The petitioner is a dealer dealing in green gram, black gram and toor dhall. He is doing business in at No.13, Mettu street, Kumbakonam, which was declared to be a notified market area as per the notification issued by the Government. Market Committee shall levy a fee on any agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area. Black gram, Green gram and Red gram are notified as agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Act (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act‘) ii) The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 98,626/- being the fee payable by him for the period from 1.3.1998 to 31.3.1999 for black gram and green gram. The petitioner, though received the notice of demand, he has not chosen to pay the amount. So a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the same was taken on file. Three witnesses were examined 3. P.W.1 was the Superintendent of Marketing Committee from 10.6.1998 to 16.4.2003. P.W.2 was the Supervisor of the Committee from 11.6.1997 to 15.4.2003. P.W.3 was the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and he paid tax also for the year 1998-1999 4. Before the trial Court, P. Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.14 were marked. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam found the accused guilty and allowed the case. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No.68 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 7. Challenging the said judgment of the appellate Authority, the present revision has been filed by the accused. 8. The point: Two pleas were raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Code and jurisdiction of the officer who filed the complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that limitation imposed under Section 468 of Cr. 8. The point: Two pleas were raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under the Code and jurisdiction of the officer who filed the complaint. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that limitation imposed under Section 468 of Cr. P.C. is not applicable because the offence committed by the dealer is continuing one. So far as this contention is concerned, learned counsel is not pressing and conceded that the complaint is in time. So, the only question to be decided in this revision is whether the prosecution is proper. 10. So far as the competency of the Director to file complaint is concerned, it is dealt with under Section 58(2) of the Act. Section 58 (2) reads as follows: “No Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint in writing made by the Director or any officer empowered by him in this behalf by Special Order.” 11. The term ‘Director‘ was defined under Section 2(8) which reads as under: “Director” means the Director of Agricultural Marketing Tamil Nadu and includes any other person or authority authorised by the Government, by notification to perform any of the functions of Director under the Act for such area as may be specified in the notification.” Therefore, it is clear to maintain a complainant must be either the Director or any other authority authorised by the Government by notification to perform the functions of the Director. 12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no notification empowering the Commissioner to act as a Director under Section 2(8) of the Act and therefore, the prosecution is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. In this case, the Government has directed Thiru Vikram Kapoor, I.A.S. to hold full additional charge of the post of Director of Agricultural Marketing by G.O.Rt.No. 2101 4.6.1999 as seen from Ex.P.14 Thereafter, by G.O. Rt. No. 2199 dated 12.6.1999 sanction was accorded for the creation of a temporary post of Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing in the Supertime Scale of I.A.S. for a period of one year. Further, Thiru C.V. Sankar, I.A.S formerly Commissioner of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare on return from leave is posted to act as Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing in the place of Vikram Kapoor, I.A.S. holding full additional charge. Further, Thiru C.V. Sankar, I.A.S formerly Commissioner of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare on return from leave is posted to act as Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing in the place of Vikram Kapoor, I.A.S. holding full additional charge. The Superintendent of Kumbakonam Marketing Committee was empowered by C.V. Sankar, I.A.S, Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing to file a complaint against the petitioner. 13. So, it is clear that Thiru Vikram Kapoor I.A.S. was in full additional charge of the post of Director of Agricultural Marketing by G.O. Rt. 2101 dated 4.6.1999 and later in his place, C.V. Sankar, I.A.S. was posted to act as Commissioner of Agricultural marketing by G.O. Rt. No. 2199 dated 12.6.1999 and he has also issued an order under Ex.P.9 empowering the Superintendent, Kumbakonam Marketing Committee to file the complaint. So, under such circumstances, I am of the view that C.V.Sankar, I.A.S was appointed to act as Director of Agricultural Marketing and on his direction only, complaint was lodged by the Superintendent. So, the contention that the complaint was not lodged by competent person, falls to the ground. 14. Further, the learned counsel argued that there is no notified marketing area and the market area must be notified under the Act. But, in the case on hand, there was no such notification and hence, the prosecution is not correct. 15. Under Section 2(14) ‘notified market area‘ was defined as under: “Notified market area‘ means any area notified under sub section (2) of Section 6 as altered by any notification under sub section (1) of Section 9.” 16. The prosecution relied on Exs. P.1 and P.2. It is seen that Exs. P.1 and P.2 are extracts of notification issued under the old Act. There must be notification under the new Act. The prosecution has not produced any material to show that there was ‘notified market area‘ as claimed by the Government. 17. Learned counsel relied on a decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in W.P.30016 of 2003 (1) The Tamil Nadu Food-grains Merchants Association Ltd. rep by its Honorary Secretary. (2) G. Kaliyamoorthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, (2) The Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board rep. by the Commissioner, (3) The Thanjavur Agricultural Marketing Committee rep. by the Committee rep. (2) G. Kaliyamoorthy v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, (2) The Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board rep. by the Commissioner, (3) The Thanjavur Agricultural Marketing Committee rep. by the Committee rep. by its Secretary and (4) The Superintendent Agricultural Regulatory Marketing) wherein it was held as under: “If there is no notification issued under sub section (2) to Section 6 of the Act notifying any one or the other notified market area‘, the petitioner can bring it to the notice of the competent authority and claim relief under Section 24 of the Act.” 18. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of a Single Judge in W.P. (Md) No. 3440 of 2005 etc. and argued that as there is no notification, the prosecution levelled against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 19. On a careful scanning of the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that there is ‘notified market area‘. There is no notified market area in Kumbakonam. So, the prosecution cannot claim that the offence was committed by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove its case satisfactorily and hence, the prosecution is bound to fail. 20. In the result, the revision is allowed. The judgment dated 20.9.2004 rendered in C.A.No.68 of 2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge for E.C. Act Cases, Thanjavur confirming the judgment dated 7.4.2004 rendered in C.C. No. 662 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam is set aside.