- (1.) ORDER : -Crl. M.P. Nos. 5043 and 5047 of 1980 filed by Prabhakaran and Crl. M.P. Nos. 5045 and 5049 of 1980 filed by Shafuyullah were heard jointly and they are being disposed of by a common order since the questions raised therein are identical or closely related.
(2.) The Supervisor, Regulated Market of South Arcot Market Committee, Chinnasalem filed complaints against Prabakaran and Shafuyullah for non-payment of market rates as laid down in S. 18 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The prosecution against Prabakaran was for nonpayment of market rate for the period from 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1979 and the prosecution against Shufuyullah was for non-payment of market rate for the period from 14-6-1978 to 31-3-1979. The complaints were filed on 3-5-1980. Having regard to the sentence awardable in these cases, the period of limitation for filing complaints will be six months under S. 468 of the Cr.P.C. In order to explain the delay in filing the complaints, the complainant filed petitions under S. 473 Cr.P.C. Prabhakaran and Shafuyullah raised objections to the Court condoning the delay in filing the complaints and the Court below has overruled their objections and granted condonation of delay. It is against that order Crl.M.P. Nos. 5047 and 5049 of 1980 have been filed. In order to explain the delay, the complainant has set out in his affidavit that the accused in each of the two cases was prosecuted for non-furnishing of accounts according to the terms of the Act. In spite of it, the respective accused did not furnish the accounts for the relevant period in question so as to enable the complainant to determine the quantum of market dues payable by each. Therefore, the complainant was forced to approach the Commercial Taxes Authorities to obtain an extract of the accounts submitted by the respective accused for the period in question. He was able to get true extracts of the accounts only on 6-4-1980 whereafter the complaints were preferred after obtaining the permission of his higher authorities for launching the prosecution. Eventually the permission was granted and the complainant filed the complaints on 3-5-1980.
(3.) The learned Magistrate has felt that the delay in filing the complaints had been occasioned due to the lapses of the accused themselves because, on account of the wrong submission of the accounts, the complainant had to approach the Commercial Tax Authorities and get certified extracts of accounts and in such circumstances, the delay in filing the complaints has been properly explained. Mr. T.S. Arunachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner in each of the two cases contends that the complainant had inspected the account books on 23-1-1979 and initialed the entries and as such there is no substance in the contention that the particulars of accounts were not made available to the complainant. This is not a tenable contention because a casual inspection of the accounts on a particular date, to wit, 23-1-1979, will not amount to the accused furnishing full particulars to the complainant for the period in question. Moreover the accounting period was extended till 31-3-1979 and therefore even if the complainant had checked the accounts on 23-1-1979, it cannot be said that the accused had placed the account particulars before the complainant and, therefore, they cannot be accused of having failed to furnish the account particulars.;