ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the complaint lodged by the respondent Market Committee, Kolara invoking the provision of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. complaining violation of the provision of Sections 8, 65 & 66 and punishable under the provisions of Sections 144, 117 and 117(A) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Senior Manager of M/s. Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Private Limited and in the conduct of its business, it purchases notified produces like Broken Rice, Maize etc., for the use and consumption in the hatcheries, that is, to manufacture chicken feed to feed the chicken, which in turn is subsequently sold to its customers. That the petitioner is buying notified commodities in bulk quantities. That the petitioner has been sourcing notified agricultural produces from various market areas like Davangere, Harapanahalli, Kottur, Baramasagara and Ranebennur. That the petitioner who indulges in purchase of bulk quantities of notified agricultural produces, comes within the ambit of the definition of “Trader” under Section 2 (48) of the Act and that the petitioner without obtaining license has been carrying on the business of purchase of notified agricultural produces in bulk quantities. That the petitioner neither obtained permit nor he is able to produce invoices or the bills evidencing payment of market fee by him. That the turnover that has been detected is at Rs.3,67,88,149/and the petitioner is liable to pay 1½% on the turnover i.e., Rs.5,51,822/as market fee. That he has evaded payment of the said sum. That the Enforcement Cell visited the premises of the petitioner and on inspection, they found Bills and Invoices, Books of Accounts evidencing purchase of Broken Rice and Maize in bulk quantities and when questioned, the petitioner was unable to produce the permit or the records for having paid the market fee. That despite giving the petitioner an opportunity to furnish the same, the petitioner has failed to produce the material to demonstrate payment of market fee or the permits enabling him to purchase the said notified agricultural produces. That on account of failure to satisfy the Authorities, the petitioner is liable to pay penalty calculated at the rate of three times the sum evaded and hence, he is liable to pay penalty which is around Rs.16,55,466/. That failure to produce the permit would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 114, 117 and 117(A) of the Act. That all in 179 bills/invoices were found and seized by the Enforcement Cell. In this background, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 2(48) of the Act, the petitioner would not come within the definition of ‘Trader’ as purchase is for the domestic consumption. He would contend that the purchases made, were for the purpose of manufacturing/processing the same into chicken feed and that the chicken feed so manufactured has been used by the petitioner hatcheries only and there has been no sale of processed or manufactured chicken feed. He would further contend that the petitioner is carrying on his business outside the market yard and hence, he would not come within the ambit of definition of ‘Trader’.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the phrase of ‘Domestic Consumption’ has been gone into by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law in this regard in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad vs. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited and Another reported in (2011) 12 SCC 277.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the