JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar assailing the validity of the judgment dated 16.08.1991 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in regular criminal appeal No.52/86 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, reversed the judgment dated 4.2.1986 passed by Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar and acquitted the accused respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 37 (2) and 28 (2) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the respondent No.2 - Rameshwar Das S/o Tansukh Das has died on 18.1.1994. In support of this fact, he has submitted an attested photo copy of the death certificate of respondent No.2 - Rameshwar Das. The same is hereby taken on record. Accordingly, the appeal qua respondent No.2 Rameshwar Das is hereby abated. 3. Briefly stating the facts, a complaint was lodged by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar against six partners of M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Sections 37 (2) and 28 (2) of the Act of 1961 alleging that M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar was licensee and sold cotton seeds oil to various firms mentioned in the complaint in the precincts of Mandi area but did not pay market fees leviable on those transactions. The learned Addl. Musif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sriganganagar took cognizance based upon the said complaint and after examining PW-1 Sohan Singh - Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar, trial was concluded. 4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 4.2.1986 convicted all the six accused for the offence punishable under Sections 28 (2) read with Section 17 and Rule 58 and Section 37 (2) read with Section 40 of the Act of 1961. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 4.2.1986, all the six accused, who were partners of M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar preferred an appeal which was finally decided by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar vide impugned judgment dated 16.08.1991. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant herein has argued that learned lower appellate Court has not considered the legal aspect in right perspective and allowed the appeal on two counts. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar vide impugned judgment dated 16.08.1991. 6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant herein has argued that learned lower appellate Court has not considered the legal aspect in right perspective and allowed the appeal on two counts. First, the complaint itself has not been proved to be filed by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar as required under Section 32 (2) of the Act of 1961 and; secondly, the complaint against the firm M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar has not been filed but it has been filed against its partners only. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the complaint was very well filed on behalf of Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar under its signatures, who has also been examined as PW-1 during trial and simply because his signatures on the complaint have not been proved by PW-1 Sohan Singh, it cannot be said that the complaint has not been filed by him. He also argues that the business of the partnership firm is conducted by all its partners. The firm cannot undergo the sentence when imposed for any of the violations committed by it, that is why, the complaint was lodged against all the partners. Simply because the firm has not been arrayed as an accused, it cannot be considered to be a material irregularity. He, thus, argues that the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court on this count is not proper and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 7 argued that the learned lower appellate Court has passed the judgment while considering the legal requirements contained in Section 32 (2) of the Act of 1961. The trial Court should have not taken cognizance of the offence as the complaint was not filed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar or by any other person specially authorised by the Director. He has further argued that unless the firm M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar, who was the licensee, has been arrayed as an accused, the proceedings should not have been continued. Thus, the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court is legally perfect and the appeal filed by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar is liable to be dismissed. 9. He has further argued that unless the firm M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar, who was the licensee, has been arrayed as an accused, the proceedings should not have been continued. Thus, the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court is legally perfect and the appeal filed by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through both the judgments passed by Courts below and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides. 10. The basic issue hinges upon the provisions of Section 32 (2) of the Act of 1961, which reads as follows:- "32 Trial of offences. - (2) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, except upon the complaint in writing either by the Secretary or by any other person specially authorised by the Director." 11. In the matter in hand, learned trial Court has proceeded to take cognizance of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1961 on the basis of the complaint allegedly filed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar. It is also clear from the perusal of the record that PW-1 Sohan Singh has been examined on behalf of the complainant, who has stated before the trial Court that he was working on the post of Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar during 5.3.1979 to 22.2.1983, but he has failed to state during his evidence that the complaint on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated, has been filed by him or that the signatures appended on the complaint were his signatures. Unless the complaint has been tendered into evidence by PW-1 Sohan Singh and his signatures are also proved by himself, it cannot be presumed that the complaint was filed by him or under his signatures. It is, thus, clear that the said complaint has not been legally proved to have been filed by the then Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar as per the provisions contained in Section 32 (2) of the Act of 1961. As mentioned above, no cognizance should have been taken of the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1961 on the basis of this complaint. Thus, the very basis of the proceedings falls to the ground and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant herein does not seem justified. 12. As mentioned above, no cognizance should have been taken of the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1961 on the basis of this complaint. Thus, the very basis of the proceedings falls to the ground and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant herein does not seem justified. 12. It has been clearly mentioned in the said complaint that M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar sold cotton seeds oil to various other industries and the bills were issued by the firm itself. The firm has also been alleged to have violated the provisions of the Act of 1961 by not depositing the market fees. In the light of these facts, it has been prayed to punish the partners of said firm for violating the various provisions of the Act of 1961 but the firm M/s. Ganganagar Oil Mills, Sriganganagar has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint, it appears to be a basic flaw that the firm which undertook various sale transactions for which the market fees was leviable has not been mentioned as an accused in the complaint. Of course, the partners could have been punished for the violations of various provisions of the Act of 1961 but it was incumbent upon the complainant to array the firm as an accused on behalf of which various partners could have been prosecuted and punished. Thus, the judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court is found to be perfect in this regard. 13. In view of above, there appears no substance in the appeal filed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar and the same is liable to be rejected. Consequently, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. *******