Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 477 (RAJ)

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Begun v. Khet Ram

2012-02-17

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The appellant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Begun, District Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 4 and 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short)'. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2001 the Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Begun had lodged a complaint against the accused-respondents, wherein he had claimed that M/s. Khetaram & Party is a licence holder for selling doda post in the agriculture market. The licence was given to them for a total sum of Rs.62,70,000/-. According to the Act, they were supposed to pay a market fees at the rate of Rs.1.60 per hundred on the agriculture produce sold by them. Moreover, according to the circulars (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15) they were equally supposed to pay a mandi fees on the amount of licence granted to them for the sale of doda post by the Excise Department. Thus, for the year 1999-2000 and for the year 2000-2001, they owed a total mandi fees of Rs.2,26,165/-. Out of the said amount, the accused-respondent had paid merely Rs.60,000/-. Therefore, they have failed to pay a mandi fees of Rs.1,66,165/-. Since there is evasion of mandi fees, it contravened the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Hence, they are liable to be punished under Section 28 of the Act. 3. In order to buttress their case, the complainant had examined two witnesses and submitted twenty-five documents. In turn, the defence had examined two witnesses, but did not submit any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 24.11.2010, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. R.S. Saluja, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to notice the fact that according to the circulars issued by the Director of the Mandi, the accused-respondents were liable to pay the mandi fees on the basis of the licence issued to them by the Excise Department. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committee an illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has raised the following pleas:-firstly, the circulars (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15) do not indicate the provisions of law under which the circulars. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committee an illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has raised the following pleas:-firstly, the circulars (Ex.P/14 and Ex.P/15) do not indicate the provisions of law under which the circulars. Moreover, according to the rules, such circulars had to be notified in the official gazette. However, in the present case, they were never notified. Hence, they have not come into force. Thus, the circulars do not have the force of law. Secondly, since the circulars do not have the force of law, the non-payment of mandi fees in terms of the circular, cannot be held to be a violation of the law. Hence, it cannot be held that the accused-respondents have violated the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Thus, they cannot be punished under Sect. 28 of the Act. Thirdly, it was for the complainant to establish that the accused-respondents were liable to pay the mandi fees under the circulars which had the force of law. Since the complainant has failed to prove this aspect, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondents. Lastly, even according to Pooran Chandra (P.W.2), agriculture produce are not subjected to double taxation. According to him, there is no rule which imposes mandi fees on the buying and selling of the agriculture produce, along with the mandi fees to be paid on the licence amount. According to the learned counsel, once this position was admitted by a witness produced by the complainant, the complainant is bound by his testimony. Thus, there is neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the accused respondents were liable to pay the mandi fees. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgments. 6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment. 7. Before a person can be held liable for committing a crime, it is imperative that an act done by the person should be declared as an offence by law. Before it can be claimed by the complainant that the accused-respondents had evaded the payment of the mandi fees, it was for the complainant to firmly establish, through cogent evidence, that the mandi fees was leviable under the circulars which had the force of law. Before it can be claimed by the complainant that the accused-respondents had evaded the payment of the mandi fees, it was for the complainant to firmly establish, through cogent evidence, that the mandi fees was leviable under the circulars which had the force of law. It was further for the complainant to establish that the fees was chargeable at a particular rate. A bare perusal of the circulars (Exs. P/14 and P/15) clearly show that it does not declare the provision under which the circulars were issued. Moreover, according to the rules, the said circulars had to be notified in the official gazette. There is no evidence on record to show that the said circulars were, indeed, notified in the official gazette. Hence, neither of these circulars had come into force. Since these circulars have not come into force, they do not have the force of law. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused -respondents were, indeed, liable to pay the market fees at the rate specified by the circulars on the licence amount. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the accused-respondents had violated the law. Since the accused-respondents have not violated the law, obviously they cannot be held guilty for having contravened the law. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondents. 8. Moreover, Pooran Chand (P.W.2) has clearly stated that according to him agriculture produce, including doda post, is not subjected the double taxation. According to him, there is no rule, notification or circular which may make the doda post liable to mandi fees on the amount of buying and selling, and secondly on the basis of licence issued by the Excise Department. Thus, in the present case, there was neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the respondents have violated any law. 9. Thus, the learned Magistrate has given a well considered judgment. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.