M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhawani Mandl, the appellant in all these appeals, is a body corporate constituted as a marketing committee under section 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, (the Act), to supervise and control the transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce by the 5 traders from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the farmers in the market area of Bhawani Mandi, declared as such Under section 4 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act empowers the appellant to collect market fees from the licensees in the prescribed manner on agricultural produce brought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may he specified by the State Government, by to notification in the Official Gazette, subject to a maximum of Re. 1/- per rupees one hundred worth of agricultural produce. The respondents in these appeals are the licence traders, carrying on the transactions of purchase and sale of agricultural produce in the said market area.
(2.) Sometimes in the year 1981 the appellant filed complaints against the respondents, in all these appeals, for their having contravened the provisions of Section 17 of the Act in as much as that during the periods, as mentioned in the respective complaints, the respondents though carried on transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural commodities in the market area, controlled and supervised by the appellant, yet they did not pay the required market fee Under section 17 of the Act on such transactions and thus committed an offence, punishable Under section 29 of the Act. It appears that the learned Magistrate, before proceeding further in the matter, chose to hear the parties on the question of applicability of Section 17 of the Act to the agricultural commodities wherein the respondents had undisputedly transacted during the periods, mentioned in the respective complaints. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate came to hold the opinion that on the data of transactions in question 'Rui' (Ginned cotton) was not included in the schedule to the Act as an agricultural produce, liable to charge of market fee Under section 17 of the Act. The learned Magistrate, therefore, dismissed the complaints against the respondents and discharged them of the offence Under section 29 r.w. Section 17 of the Act. Hence all these appeals by the appellants, involving the same common point.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that 'Rui' (ginned cotton), in which the respondents had dealt in during the periods, mentioned in their respective complaints, fell within the purview of an agricultural produce, liable to charge of market fee Under section 17 of the Act and mentioned in Schedule to the Act at serial No. 1. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error in not appreciating the definition of the word 'cotton' as was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Chiman Lal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 96 . It was submitted that since the learned Magistrate committed an error in discharging the respondents at that stage of the proceedings, the impugned orders are required to be vacated.;