H. L. Capoor, J. - (1.) SUKHBASI Lal has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 20th July, 1972, of the Sessions Judge, Budaun, dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the learned Magistrate convicting the applicant under Section 37(2) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter called 'the Adhiniyam', for violation of Rule 80 of the Rules framed under the said Adhiniyam and awarding a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-.
(2.) IT is not disputed that there is a regulated market at Budaun. The applicant is the owner of the firm known 'Sukhbasi Lal Birjesh Chandra' situate at Budaun. He is said to have violated several rules and sections of the Adhiniyam. Four charges were, accordingly, levelled against him. One of the said charges was that the applicant had been doing the work of a retail dealer without obtaining any licence in violation of Section 9(2) of the Adhiniyam. The second charge was that he did not file statements in Forms 48, 5 and 54 Ka daily inspite of being directed to do so under rule 80 with the result that he violated the provisions of the said rule also. The third charge was that he did not deposit the market fee and hence violated rule 68(2)(I) of the Rules under Adhiniyam. The fourth charge was that he did not comply with the conditions of his licence as a wholesale dealer. It appears that the learned Magistrate held that the applicant had not violated the rules or the provisions of any of the sections of the Adhiniyam as given out in charges nos. 1, 3 and 4. According to the Magistrate charge no. 2 against the applicant for not filing the statements in Forms 48, 5 and 54 ka daily was proved and that he had violated the provisions of Rule 80 of the Rules framed under Adhiniyam. Hence the learned Magistrate convicted him under Section 37(2) of the Adhiniyam and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. An appeal was preferred by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge in which it was admitted that he had not submitted statement in Form 48 daily as demanded by the Market Committee according to Rule 80 of the Adhiniyam and the bye-laws framed under it. The only contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge was that the said bye law by means of which the Market Committee had prescribed a statement to be submitted in Form 48 was ultra vires of its powers and that the bye-law framed was also ultra vires of the powers of the State Government. The learned Sessions Judge, however, did not accept the said contention. He was of the view thet Section 40 of the Adhiniyam gave an authority to the State Government to frame rules and bye-laws under clause (xxvi) of the said section which related to maintenance and submission of aocount books by traders, commission agents, brokers, weighmen and their inspection. It was in accordance with this rule making power. that the State Government framed rule 80 which provides that every trader, commission agent, broker, warehouseman, weighman, measurer and any other person handling or dealing in specified agricultural produce and holding licence under these rules, shall keep account books in such forms and render such periodical returns and at such time and in such form as the Market Committee may, from time to time, direct and shall render such assistance in the collection of and prevention of the evasion of fees due under these rules and bye-laws and in the prevention of breach of the rules and bye-laws as may be required by the Market Committee. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge that the rule requiring a trader to render periodical returns was beyond the authority of clause'(xxvi) of Section 40 because this rule provided only for the preparation of original account books and did not provide for submission of returns was also rejected. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the submission of return was a method of checking of the account books because the returns were prepared from the account books and instead of the account books in original being called if the traders were called upon to make statements in certain forms it could not be said that the purpose of the said rule was in any way beyond the rule making power.
(3.) IN the application in revision the learned counsel for the applicant has not pressed the said point which was considered and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The main contention of the learned counsel before me is as to what meaning could be given to the words 'periodical returns' used in rule 80 of the rules framed under the Adhiniyam. IN the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical principles, Vol. II, at page 1474, 'periodical' means "recurring at regular periods or intervals ; loosely, reappearing at intervals, intermittent." Hence the learned counsel submitted that if the returns are to be submitted daily it would be different from submitting a return periodically. The meaning given to the word 'periodical' in the dictionary is to be taken into consideration only if the bye-laws framed under the Adhiniyam do not fix any period for the returns to be filed in Form 48. There is Paper No. A-25 on the record whose heading is : Karyalaya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Budaun, Samast Thoke Viya-pari, Arhatiya, Dalai, Tolak Ityad". It is provided in clause 1 of the said paper that a trader will have to file the returns in Form 48 at the end of every day or upto the noon of the next following day to the Mandi Samiti. Further time extended upto the noon of the next day for the filing of the returns daily clearly suggests that a regular extra period beginning from the morning of the next day upto the noon of that day is provided for filing the return of the earlier day and this could be said to have the effect of returns being filed periodically. IN this view of the matter if the statements in Form 48 were not filed by the applicant he could be said to have committed a default in respect of it with the result that the second charge was clearly proved against him and he was rightly convicted by the two courts below particularly when this bye-law was in furtherance of the object of clause (xxvi) and instead of the account books being filed the traders were required only to submit returns in Form 48. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant to the contrary will have to be rejected and neither the rule nor the bye-laws could be said to be beyond the powers of the State Government or the Market Committee. In the result the application in revision is devoid of all force and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.;