- (1.) S. N. Sahay, J. This is an application for revision filed by Om Prakash, revisionist against the order dated June 20, 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut, dismissing an appeal preferred by the revisionist and upholding the conviction and sen tence.
(2.) THE revisionist was prosecuted under Section 37, U. P. Kishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 on the allegations that the revisionist was a dealer in Khoa doing business as Commission Agent in the market yard of Mandi Samiti, Meerut. He did not obtain the requisite licence from the Mandi Samiti for doing business for the year 1979-80 and had accordingly committed an offence under Section 37. THE revisionist denied the prosecution case and alleged that he was a retailer in khoa and had been involved on account of mis-apprehension. The prosecution examined (P. W. 1) Rajendra Pal Singh, Supervisor Mandi Samiti, Meerut. He testified that the revisionist was a dealer in Khoa and acted as Commission Agent in 1979-80. A notice was served on December 14,1978 and in reply to that notice the revisionist admitted that he is a Commission Agent, doing business in Khoa. No evidence was produced in defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate IX, Meerut believed the prosecution case and held that the charge was proved against the revisionist. He, by his order dated January 27, 1981, convicted the revisionist under Section 37 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to simple imprisonment for one month. In the appeal, which was preferred by the revisionist against his conviction, it was pointed out on his behalf before the learned Sessions Judge that there is no independent witness to testify about the actual transaction which might have been conducted by the revisionist as Commission Agent. It was stated that the revisionist simply purchased Khoa and sold it to different customers and so he was not bound to obtain any licence. This contention was repelled by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the evidence of P. W. 1 is fully supported by documentary evidence including the notice served on the revisionist and the admission made by him in his reply to that notice. The learned Sessions Judge held that it was the duty of the revisionist to obtain licence under Section 9 of the Act as admittedly the revisionist was dealing in an agricultural produce within the market yard. He further held that the Mandi Samiti was competent to levy and collect fee from the revisionist for the year 1979-80. It was also contended on behalf of the revisionist that the market fee was not recoverable from several persons and in support of this contention in the case, Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Company v. State of U. P, AIR 1980 SC 1124, was cited. This case was distinguished by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in the instant case it could not be shown that the Mandi Samiti has levied any market fee on another person who sold Khoa to the revisionist. So it was held to be not a case of multipoint levy. As the fact that the revisionist had not taken licence was not in dispute, the conviction of the revisionist and the sentence inflicted upon him was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) IN this revision learned Counsel for revisionist has urged before me that the complaint was not examined and the sole testimony of P. W. 1 was not sufficient to establish the charge againt the revisionist. I do not find any force in this contention. P. W. 1 Rajendra Pal Singh is Supervisor of Mandi Samiti and he has knowledge about the affairs of the Mandi Samiti. His statement that the revisionist carried on business in Khoa is not in dispute. The oral evidence as to the status of the revisionist being a Commission Agent is supported by the admission made by the revisionist in his reply to the notice served upon him. Under the circumstances, the Courts below have not committed any error in believ ing the testimony of P. W. 1 and holding that the prosecution case has been established thereby. It was not necessary to examine the complainant Sri Jaswant Singh, Secretary of the Mandi Samiti in these circumstances. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the entries in the register maintained by the Samiti showing the revisionist to be a Commis sion Agent were not duly proved. This circumstances is also of no significance in this case. The revisionist was liable to obtain a licence under Section 9 of the Act and as he committed a breach of the provisions thereof by not obtaining licence, he committed an offence under Section 37. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that there revisionist was a retailer, he was liable to obtain licence under Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 67 of the Rules framed thereunder. The liability of the revisionist having been established the conviction of the revisionist under Section 37 is fully justified and the sentence of fine imposed upon him cannot also be said to be excessive. The revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed .;