- (1.) THE appellant, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bharatpur, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.07.2007, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 17 and 27-B of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the accused-respondents were carrying business of notified agriculture produce in the Mandi area, Bharatpur. THEy have a licence from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. On 24.09.2000, it came to the notice of the appellant-mandi that the accused-respondents are doing the business of selling of notified agriculture produces outside the Mandi area, but they are not paying the ?mandi fee? in this regard. This information was based on certain inquiries made from the Sales Tax Department. THErefore, the accused-respondents had failed to pay ?mandi fee? from the year 1991 to 2001. Despite the summoning of the relevant record from the accused-respondents, they failed to produced the same before the appellant. THErefore, the appellant alleged that the accused-respondents had evaded a ?mandi fees? of Rs.80,379/-. Hence, according to the appellant, the accused-respondents had committed offences under Sections 17 and 27-B of the Act. In order to buttress its case, the appellant had examined a single witness and had submitted eight documents. THE accused-respondents neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence this criminal leave to appeal before this court. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that upon an information received from the Sales Tax Department the appellant realised that the accused-respondents were selling their agriculture produces outside the area of the Krishi Mandi. Therefore, they had violated Sections 17 and 27-B of the Act. Hence, the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the accused-respondents Mr. Rishipal Sharma, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents, has strenuously contended that there are two elements of an offence under Section 17 of the Act which needs to be proved by the prosecution, namely there is a Mandi Fees that needs to be realised from the accused-respondents; secondly, this Mandi fees is liable to be paid in case the appellant were to prove that the sale had taken place within the local jurisdiction of the Krishi Mandi. According to him, there is no proof that alleged sale had taken place ?within the local jurisdiction of the Krishi Mandi?. Moreover, Gauri Shankar (PW-1), in his cross-examination, had clearly admitted that there no amount was due, in the form of Krishi Mandi fees, from the accused-respondents. Since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the learned trial court was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. According to the learned trial court, Gauri Shankar (PW-1), in his cross-examination, had clearly admitted that but for the information received from the Sales Tax Department, they do not have any information or proof to establish the fact that the accused-respondents were selling their products within the local jurisdiction of the Krishi Mandi. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he had readily admitted that all the agriculture products which were brought into the Krishi Mandi, were recorded in a register by the staff of the Krishi Mandi. He had further admitted that a bare perusal of Ex-P/8 clearly reveals that no amount of mandi fees was due from the accused-respondents. Once these two facts have been admitted by the prosecution witnesses himself, the case of the prosecution falls apparent. Thus, the learned trial court was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 17 and 27-B of the Act.
(3.) HENCE, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;