Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 755 (CAL)

Amrut Lal Patel v. State of W B

2007-09-26

PARTHA SAKHA DATTA

body2007
Judgment :- (1.) THIS revisional application dated 18. 12. 2006 at the instance of the accused in C. R. Case No. 133 of 2002 under section 34 of the West Bengal Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 pending before the learned Judicial magistrate, 2 Court, Chandernagore has been taken out to challenge the proceeding on the ground that the complainant who was the Special Officer, seoraphuli Regulated Market Committee had no authority to lodge complaint under the provision of the Act because the marketing committee has not been constituted under the provision of the Act, the committee has been superseded prior to the initiation of the proceeding that learned Magistrate was illegal in rejecting the petition of the complainant for dropping of the proceeding until the stage of section 251 Cr. PC was reached and that there were two complaints lodged and the law is well-settled that the second complaint is bar. (2.) IT is well-known that quashing of a complaint happens in rarest of a rare case and the Court can only see whether the petition of complaint discloses prima facie offence. The complaint was lodged with the learned S. D. J. M. , chandernagore by the Special Officer, Seoraphuli Regulated Market Committee under C. R. No. 290/01 alleging that upon inspection of 30. 3. 2000 into the business place of accused petitioner that he was fund dealing in timber processing business at his premises as stated in the petition of complaint in contravention of the provision of the Act as aforesaid and he failed to produce licence issued by Seoraphuli Regulated Market Committee. In that complaint dated 29. 5. 2001 it was alleged that a fee of Rs. 600/-was due to the market committee. Offence is punishable under section 34 of the Act. (3.) ON 20. 3. 2002 another complaint was lodged alleging that for few years continuously the accused has been carrying on business of processing of timber without valid RMC and a sum of Rs. 90,000/-was found due on account of collection money and arrear fees. (4.) I have heard Mr. Tushar Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the two complaints are not sustainable. It can be said that the two complaints were filed on 29. 5. 2001 and 20. 3. 2002 pursuant to two different inspections and in one complaint a sum of Rs. (4.) I have heard Mr. Tushar Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the two complaints are not sustainable. It can be said that the two complaints were filed on 29. 5. 2001 and 20. 3. 2002 pursuant to two different inspections and in one complaint a sum of Rs. 600/-was alleged to have been due on account of payment of fees and in another complaint a sum of Rs. 90,000/- was allegedly due on account of collection money and arrear licence fees for a period of few years. The question as to how a sum of Rs. 90,000/-came to be the due between the period from 29. 5. 2001 and 20. 3. 2002 is a question of fact that has to be gone into an examination at the trial. The two petition of complaints which are two distinct and different cases which have been clubbed together in one revisional application prima facie disclosed an offence. (5.) AS to constitution of marketing committee, there is section 5 (3) of the west Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 providing the mode of formation of the committee and according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the committee was not legally formed. Section 13 deals that requirement of licence in connection with the business of agricultural produce and contravention of that section becomes a penal offence under section 34. The licence fee is payable to the marketing committee. It cannot be said that the marketing committee has been totally abolished and is defunct. The committee is a statutory committee and my attention has been drawn to a gazette notification on 5. 5. 73 under notification No. 4561 M. W. and C. furnishing therein the formation of a committee. By notification No. 4566 in W. and C. dated 15. 5. 73 such committee was formed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner produced certain notification whereby some time in 30. 7. 92 the District magistrate was asked to perform the duties and functions of the marketing committee on 30. 7. 92. On 17. 8. 99 S. D. O. , Seoraphuli was appointed to look after the works including the banking operation of the marketing committee. On 18. 3. 2002 the joint direction of agricultural (marketing) was authorized to look after the affairs of the marketing committee and on 22. 2. 7. 92. On 17. 8. 99 S. D. O. , Seoraphuli was appointed to look after the works including the banking operation of the marketing committee. On 18. 3. 2002 the joint direction of agricultural (marketing) was authorized to look after the affairs of the marketing committee and on 22. 2. 04 the District magistrate, Hooghly was appointed to look after the affairs of the marketing committee. Now by these notifications it is not proved the marketing committee has been defunct. The person carrying on business is required to deposit requisite licence fees with the committee and it cannot be said that no committee at all was functioning at the material point of time. Under the statute a person carrying on trade or business is required to deposit fees with the committee which never stopped its functioning. No document was produced before the learned Magistrate that the committee was superseded prior to filing of the complaint even if a particular committee was superseded another committee steps in which is statutory one and is not extinguished and the Government from time to time issued notification appointing the Government functionaries to look after the business and functioning of the committee. (6.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to a Division Bench judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Manindra Nath Roy, 1978 (1) CLJ 55 wherein it was held that where committee was constituted in violation of mandatory provision of the Act, all actions of such committee are improper. This decision does not lend to the proposition that any defect in the formation of a committee would absolve the businessman of paying his requisite statutory fees including licence fees with that committee. (7.) LEARNED Advocate for the opposite party submitted that in view of an amendment which was given effect to in 1978 (Ref. W. B. Act 27/1978), it cannot be said that the action on the part of the committee was bad in the eyes of the law. Learned Counsel for the said private opposite party further contended that the judgment as relied upon by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of he petitioner/accused person related to a case which was not guided or governed by the said amendment. Learned Counsel for the said private opposite party further contended that the judgment as relied upon by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of he petitioner/accused person related to a case which was not guided or governed by the said amendment. On behalf of O. P. , it was further submitted that section 11 of the Act leaves no scope for controversy as it clearly lays down that no action of a market committee shall be called in question merely by reason of the existence of any vacancy, in or any defect in the constitution of the Market committee at the time of taking such action. (8.) REVISIONAL application is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.