SHARMA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti through its Secretary, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 5. 12. 1991 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra (for short `the learned trial Court') in criminal misc. case No. 188/85, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 28 (1) and 28 (2) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1961 (for short `the Act of 1961') by giving him benefit of doubt.
(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution, the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Neem-ka-Thana, (in short `the Samiti') submitted a complaint to this effect that accused purchased leaves of Tendu in the sum of Rs. 422252. 75 without any licence and on the aforesaid leaves, mandi shulk amounting to Rs. 4222. 53 is payable and on this amount, late fee is made as Rs. 3824. 00. He further stated in the complaint that the accused has not paid the aforesaid amount and thus, by violating the sections 28 (1) and 28 (2) of the Act of 1961, he has committed the offence punishable under the law. He further stated in his complaint that an amount of Rs. 8046. 53/- ought to be deposited by the accused. After submission of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the accused respondent and the accused was summoned by way of summons. The description for the offence under sections 28 (1) and 28 (2) of the Act of 1961 was read over to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in matter. The prosecution in support of its case produced PW 1 Prakash Chandra Vijay and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 5. 12. 1991 acquitted the accused-respondent. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5. 12. 1991 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner Samiti has preferred the instant appeal. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent, as previously a case was also going on against the accused respondent. Lastly, he submits that the accused respondent purchased leaves of Tendus from 1980 to 1984 without license and for the aforesaid period he has not deposited the mandi shulk and delayed amount. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5. 12. 1991 is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. ;