Judgment :- 1. The respondents herein are the accused in S.T.C.No.139 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, and they were acquitted from the charges under Sections 8(9) and 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 and 31 and 33 of 1991 Rules. Challenging the said acquittal, the Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Cuddalore, who is the complainant had preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court. 2. The complaint was filed for the reason that the accused were not paying the Market Fee amount which was illegal under Sections 8(9) and 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 and 32(1) and 33 of 1991 Rules, and therefore the accused are liable to be punished under Section 48 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. 4. Though the trial Court acquitted the accused for various reasons, now according to the learned counsel for the respondents/accused, the complainant had no authority to file the complaint and the permission granted by the Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing and Agriculture Business, Chennai, is not valid as per law. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.408 and 447 to 455 of 2006, 591 to 625 and 248 to 267 of 2007, dated 28.03.2008 and also a single Judge decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.4509 to 4514 of 2012, dated 16.07.2012. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at that time, there was no Director of Agricultural Marketing and only the Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing was in the post. 6. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 7. It has been already held by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Nagamuthu in Crl.O.P.Nos.4509 to 4514 of 2012 that the authorisation given by the Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing to a person for filing complaint is not valid as per Section 58(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. As per the mandatory requirement of the said Section, only the Director of Agricultural Marketing should authorise a person to file the complaint. As per the mandatory requirement of the said Section, only the Director of Agricultural Marketing should authorise a person to file the complaint. It is observed that "it may be true that on the administrative side, when a senior officer is appointed, he is called only as a commissioner. But the Director of Agricultural Marketing is a statutory post and when the statute mandates that a special authorisation is to be given only by the Director, it cannot be given by anybody else." 8. In this case, admittedly the permission to file the complaint was not granted by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, but only by the Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing. 9. Hence, it is held that the complaint filed by the Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Cuddalore, without any permission from the Director is not maintainable. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.