M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) These petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. raise common questions of law on identical facts. These were heard together and are now disposed of by this combined order.
(2.) The petitioners are licensed traders of agricultural produce, particularly "Tilhan Seeds". They carry on their business in the market yard of the "market area" at Bharatpur. The respondent is a body corporate, incorporated under section 8 and established under section 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (the Act) by the State Government for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce.
(3.) Sometimes in the years 1981-82 the Deputy Director, Krishi Marketing, Rajasthan inspected a number of oil mills, including the present petitioners, and found them to have engaged themselves in extracting oil from oil seeds and sold the same during the period between 19.8.1975 to 22.4.1977. It was noted by him that the petitioners were licensed to purchase and sell "oil-seeds" only and not to manufacture oil and sell the same. He further noted that though the petitioners had paid the prescribed market fees for dealing in oil-seeds. Yet they did not pay or paid less such fees in respect to the transactions of sale of oil. On scrutiny of the details of relevant transactions during the aforesaid period the following position was noted. JUDGEMENT_68_LAWS(RAJ)3_19971.html The respondent was of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have paid market fee @ Re 1% per Rupees hundred on the sale of oil by them during the aforementioned period, which they failed to pay despite notices. Complaints for offence under section 17 punish-able under section 28 of the Act were, therefore, filed under section 32 by the Secretary to the respondent against the petitioners in the Court of a Magistrate at Bharatpur. However, the trial Court dismissed such complaints on the ground that since the charge of market fee on manufacture and sale of oil had been withdrawn and done away with much before the filing of the complaints against the petitioners, there were no sufficient grounds to proceed with their prosecutions. The proceedings were, therefore, dropped. On Revision applications having been preferred under section 397 Cr.P.C. by the respondent against the relevant orders of the learned Magistrate, the learned Special Judge disagreed with the Magistrate and held that since the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners was a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate was competent under section 473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay, if any, committed in presenting the complaints in the Court of Magistrate, the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioners was bad in law. Aggrieved by such orders of the learned Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, the present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners.;