M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31st July, 1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dismissing the appeal filed by the accused -petitioner which had been filed against the judgment dated 18th November, 1983 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar convicting the accused -petitioner under Section 28(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo one month's simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - to each of the accused petitioners and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days simple imprisonment each. The learned Sessions Judge, maintained the conviction of each of the accused petitioner under Section 28(2) of the Act but each of the accused petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment upto the rising of the court under that Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. The accused petitioners were also directed that if they do not deposit the fine then each of them will further suffer three month's rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that both the accused -petitioners are the partners of M/s Shivchand Hukumchand a firm dealing in sugar etc. in Jhalaratapan, District Jhalawar. The said firm is situated within the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jhalarapatan. The firm deals in food grain and sugar and is a licence holder. The business premises of the said firm were inspected some time in the year 1978 and on inspection it was; found that the petitioner's firm of which both the petitioners were partners was not paying the case at rate of 1% on the sale of the agriculture produce bought and sold by it. It was revealed that the aforesaid case was not paid for the period from 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 on sugar,. Gur and Khand which were bought and sold by the petitioner's firm After the inspection several communications were addressed to the petitioner's firm but some of them were not acknowledged and it was only under Ex D 1 dated 11th March, 1978 that it was said the case was not paid on such of the goods which had been sold out side the market area. A complaint was field and the accused petitioners were tried and in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC each of the accused petitioner took the similar stand and came out with a case that what ever goods were sold, out sides or thus no cess v. as paid on them. They did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and on appeal the conviction was maintained and sentence was reduced as aforesaid. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. He contends that a look at Section 28(2) of the Act will show that the offence is punishable with the imprisonment for a term of three months and a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. A look at Section 468 Cr. PC will show that no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation and in case the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year then the period of limitation prescribed to one year. It may be stated in the present case that the offence under Section 28(2) of the Act only came to the knowledge of the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, on inspection of the business premises of the petitioner's firm on the month of January, 1973 and the complaint was filed on 7th September 1978, i.e. within one year of the knowledge by the Secretary of the commission of the offence by the firm of the accused -petitioner and as such the first submission of the learned Counsel that the cognizance was taken after the expiry of the prescribed limit has no merit and is dismissed, in view of the provision contained in Section 468 Cr.PC.
(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were liable to pay the market fee or cess on sale and purchase of sugar, Gur etc. within the market area and not outside it because the petitioner's firm had sold the goods detailed in Ex D 2, outside the market area and the firm was not liable to pay any market fee or cess. It may be stated that the petitioner's firm was required by the Secretary of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to produce the record in respect of the sale of the various commodities for the period in dispute but the record was not produced for inspection.;