Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1456 (RAJ)

Nagar Trading Co. , Khanpur v. M/s. Nagar Trading Co. , Khanpu

2008-05-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Krishi Upaj Mandl Samiti Khanpur has submitted an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.09.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur in Criminal Case No. 169/91 by which he has acquitted the accused-respondent and the complaint was dismissed. 2. In brief, the 'acts of the case are as under : Krishi Upaj Mandl Samiti, Khanpur has been established in Khanpur, District Jhalawar and the respondents did not business from March, 1988 of the agricultural produce. Mandi Shulk amounting to 1800/65 was outstanding and for that cheque was given on 31.3.1988 and receipt was also given by the Cashier of the Samiti, but when the cheque was rendered for encashment in Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank, Khanpur, then on 7.4.1988 it was returned with a note 'Refer to drawer'. On this the Secretary wrote a letter to the respondents to deposit the Shulk with late fees and again notices has been given on 4.8.1988, but till date the amount was deposited and, therefore, a complaint under Section 17 read with of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 was filed against the respondents. On 13.12.1994 the substances were read over and explained to the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 17 and 28 of Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Act, 1961. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Thereafter the statements of PW-1 Mahendra Singh, PW-2 Ramesh 15 Kumar. PW-3 Dharmchand and PW-4 Sriram were recorded got exhibited some documents. (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3). 4. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 5. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 19.09.1996 dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused-respondent. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial court dated 19.09.1996, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has preferred the instant appeal. 7. On behalf of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Mr. J.K. Singhi has submitted a photocopy of the judgment decided on 10.12.1984 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 1983 which should be taken on record. The para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced as under : "Since the offence involved is a continuing offence, it falls out side the inhibitory mandate in Section 468 Cr.P.C. Section 472 Cr.P.C. makes an exception in the case of a continuing offence. The para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced as under : "Since the offence involved is a continuing offence, it falls out side the inhibitory mandate in Section 468 Cr.P.C. Section 472 Cr.P.C. makes an exception in the case of a continuing offence. For a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation runs at every moment of time during which the offence continues. Thus, Section 472 of the Act is a proviso to the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C. If an offence is governed by Section 472 for the purpose of limitation, the stringent provisions contained in Section 467 Cr.P.C. are not applicable. The offence of the non-payment of market fee in the instant case, as held above, is a continuing offence, as such it is governed by Section 472 and not by the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of limitation. The cognizance of the offence, therefore, cannot be said to be time barred." 8. On the other hand the counsel for the accused-respondent Ms. Swata Pareek has contended that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent after dismissing the complaint and no interference is required. She has further drawn the attention of this court that this matter is related to 20 years ago from today. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the entire material on record. 10. After going through the record of the case, I remit the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur to decide the matter in the light of the judgment delivered in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 42 of 1983 decided on 10.12.1984. Hence, I set aside the judgment delivered by him by the learned trial court on 19.09.1996 and directed that the matter should be decided in the light of the aforesaid judgment. 11. The accused-respondent is directed to present before the learned trial court on 15th of July 2008.Appeal Allowed. *******