N.N.MATHUR,J. - (1.) Both the petitions arises from a common order dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under sections 22 & 27-B of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Act and Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961').
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the petitions are that respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana stating inter alia that petitioners are doing the business of sale and purchase of fruits and vegetables in the name of Shiv Fruit Company in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 881/2002 and Balaji Fruit Company in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 882/2002. It is alleged that petitioners were allowed to recover trade allowance at 4% as decided by the State Government. In spite of that, they were charging at the rate of 4.75%. In response to the notice, it was stated by the petitioners that they were charging 0.75% per hundred for labour and weighment. According to the complainant, petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1961 which prohibits trade allowance permissible except prescribed. Contention was raised before the trial Court to the effect that petitioners were charging 0.75% excess as trade allowance against the charges for labour and weighment. However, this contention was rejected. Learned counsel has reiterated the contentions raised before the trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the decision of Apex Court in Arunachala Nadar v. State of Madras and Ors. reported in AIR 1959 SC 300. The Apex Court explaining the trade allowance, held that it is a deduction out of the price or commodity agreed to be paid or transferred. The Court further observed that if the payment is de hors the terms of transaction but made towards consideration for the use of premises or services rendered, it would not be a deduction from the price or in any transaction. The authority has full application to the facts of the case. Case of the petitioners is that they are charging 0.75% excess per hundred for labour and weighment charges, as such, it is not a trade allowance. It is in dispute that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has not framed any bye-laws in this regard. It is for the samiti to take a decision and to frame bye-laws, if they so wish. Thus, even accepting the allegations made in the complaint on its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioners under sections 22 and 27-B of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Act. Contentions have also been rasied with respect to the authority of filing of complaint. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy as the petitions deserves to be allowed on the first ground.
(3.) Consequently, both the petitions are allowed and the order dated 29.4.2002 in both the cases is quashed and set aside. Petitions allowed.;