1. The petitioners in this batch of petitions are accused of offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 as amended by the Act of 1987 (in short, the Act) for contravention of Section 7(1) of the Act in C.C.Nos.270, 292, 267, 288, 276, 290, 274, 271, 280, 273, 275, 291, 289, 278, 277, 279, 272 of 2009 on the file of Special Judicial magistrate of the First Class for Excise cases, Nellore and C.C. Nos.271, 280, 270, 269, 268, 279, 266, 272, 281 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nellore. Supervisor-cum-Authorised person of Agricultural Market Committee, Nellore filed complaints in the above cases against the respective petitioners. The petitioners are seeking quashing of those complaints under Section Supervisor-cum-Authorised person of Agricultural Market Committee Nellore filed complaints in the above cases against the respective petitioners. The petitioners are seeking quashing of those complaints under Section 482 Cr.P.C on various grounds.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners/accused are wholesale dealers in Tamarind, Jaggery etc., which are notified agricultural produce under Section 4(4) of the Act within the notified market area of the Agricultural Market Committed, Nellore and that the accused carried on business in the above notified market within the said notified area since the years mentioned in the respective complaints and failed to pay license fee for that year and that the complainant/the 1st respondent herein issued show-cause notice to the accused on 04.01.2008 and the same was acknowledged by the accused and that inspite of the notice, the accused failed to pay license fees as per Section 7(1) of the Act and contravened the said provisions.

3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the complaint of the 1st respondent on its face value of facts and impediments is not sustainable and amounts to abuse of process of criminal law. According to the petitioners, they are not traders or dealers, but are only commission agents. The allegations on this aspect in the petitions are exactly on the following terms:

“the Petitioner sells commodity only as an agent of another authorised seller/dealer from other places other than Nellore like Chittor, Madanapalle etc., who is already a licensee at that Notified Market Area and paid levied fee under Section 12(1) of the Act on the notified agricultural produce, sent to the petitioner to sell the same on his behalf of on the incentive of commission. Thus, the petitioner herein, who is the accused in the court below, is a commission agent.”

There is no dispute that the petitioners are carrying on their respective businesses at Nellore within the notified market area of Agricultural Market Committed, Nellore. According to the complainant/1st respondent, the accused are wholesale dealers. The accused dispute the fact of they being wholesale dealers and contend that they are commission agents. Whether the accused are wholesale dealers or commission agents is purely a question of fact. It is to be decided after the respective parties leading evidence before the trial court during trial of these cases. Names of the petitioners are 1) Sri Padmavathi Traders, 2) M/s.Sri Padmavathi Trading Company, 3) M/s. Sri Satyanarayana General Trading Company, 4) M/s. Sri Satyanarayana General Trading Company, 5) M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Trading Company, 6) M/s. Kolluru Krishna Murthy & Sons, 7) M/s. Karamsetty Lakhsmaiah Setty & Sons, 8) M/s. Sri Satyanarayana General Trading Company, 9) M/s. Sri Satyanarayana General Trading Company, 10) Sri Parvathi Trading Company, 11) Sri Padmavathi Traders, 12) M/s. Sri Satayanarayana General Trading Company, 13) Sri Padmavathi Traders, 14) M/s. Karamsetty Lakhsmaiah Setty & Sons, 15) M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Trading Company, 16) Sri Padmavathi Traders, 17) M/s. Sri Satyanarayana General Trading Company, 18) M/