ORDER: This revision case has been filed by the accused in C.C. No.258 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla. 2. Petitioner-accused was prosecuted for the offence under Section 25 (1) and 23 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Market Act, 1966. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused is having a rice mill within notified area of the marketing committee, Bapatla. The accused did paddy and rice business during the years 1985-1986 to 1988-1989. The accused has to pay Rs.70,895.10 Ps. towards market fee to the complainant-marketing committee. As the accused did not pay the amount, the complainant filed C.C. No.57 of 1991 and after completion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.70,895.10 ps. in eight equal quarterly instalments. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred C.A. No.167 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and the appellate Court while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence of imprisonment from four months till the raising of the Court and confirmed the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and also directed the accused to pay half of the market committee fee within one month. Even after the judgment of the appellate Court, the accused failed to pay the amount, therefore he was issued a show cause notice on 13-10-1998 stating as to why the prosecution shall not be launched against the petitioner for non-payment of the market fee. The notice was received by the accused, but he failed to pay the amount. Hence, the second complaint has been filed, which resulted in conviction of the accused and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was once convicted for failing to pay the amount towards market fees for the years 1985- 1986 to 1988-1989. The conviction was also confirmed by the appellate Court with a modification in the sentence. Despite the conviction, he failed to pay the amount due to the marketing committee, therefore, the present case has been filed for default in payment of the same amount. 4. Under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India no person shall be punished for the same offence more than once. Despite the conviction, he failed to pay the amount due to the marketing committee, therefore, the present case has been filed for default in payment of the same amount. 4. Under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India no person shall be punished for the same offence more than once. Under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., a person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted for such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-Section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-Section (2) thereof. 5. In the present case the accused was convicted in C.C. No.57 of 1991 for default in payment of amount of Rs.70,895.10 Ps. being the market fees for the years 1985-1986 to 1988-1989. The present case was also filed for realization of the same amount for the same offence on the ground that he committed default in payment of the amount due to the market yard, despite the direction by the Courts below. But, in view of the bar under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 (1) of Cr.P.C., the present prosecution cannot be maintained, therefore the convictions and sentences imposed against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the revision case is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner in C.C. No.258 of 1998 and the sentences imposed thereon and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.364 of 2000 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence. The complainant may realize the amount from the petitioner under the provisions of the Act if it so desires.