JUDGMENT :

H. R. Shelat, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2nd September 1986 acquitting the respondent, of the offences punishable under Section 35 & 36 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963 (for short the `Act') for violating Section 6 & 8 of the Act, the original-complainant has preferred these appeals calling in question the legality and validity of acquittal.

2. In all the three appeals, the questions of law and facts being common, these three appeals were ordered to be heard together and disposed of by a common judgment so as to avoid hardship to the parties, waste of time and conflicting judgments. Accordingly, these three appeals are heard and by this common judgment all the three appeals shall stand disposed of.

3. Necessary facts may, in brief, be stated. Under the Act, relating to Khambhalia Taluka, Agricultural Produce Market Committee came to be formed from 18th November 1976. A notification in that regard was issued. After the Committee started functioning under the Act it was incumbent upon all those who were trading within the trading limits of the Market Committee to obtain the licence under Section 8 of the Act without which trading in the area came to be made illegal and punishable. The respondents had taken the licence, but after the period of licence expired, they without getting the licence renewed, continued to carry on their business within the local limits of the Market Committee. They thereby violated Section 6 & 8 of the Act made punishable under Section 36 of the Act. Not only that but the respondents also did not make the payment of the cess being levied by the Committee and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 35 of the Act. Rashmin Jethashankar Shukla is serving as the Secretary of the Market Committee. The Secretary,it seems came to know that respondents were carrying on their business within the market area without the licence and without paying any cess and thereby offences as stated herein above were committed. He therefore undergoing necessary procedure and obtaining necessary permission from the Market Committee to lodge the complaint, filed the complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Jamkhambhalia which came to be registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 354, 356 & 363 of 1986. On being served with the summons, the respondents appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.). They when the plea was taken pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Secretary of the Committee appeared and deposed before the Court and produced the copies of the Notification. Appreciating such evidence before him, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent holding that the complainant, i.e. the appellant failed to establish the charge levelled against the respondent. It is against that judgment and order dated 2nd September 1987, the present appeals are filed calling in question the legality and validity of the order of acquittal.

4. Assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, learned advocate, Mr. Ketan Shah, submits that the learned Magistrate fell into error in appreciating the evidence. The complainant had without missing any link deposed before the Court as to how the breach of the provisions of the Act were committed, constituting the offence, made punishable under Section 35 & 36 of the Act. The learned Magistrate misconstrued the evidence and provisions of the Act applicable and erroneously concluded against the complainant-present appellant. It is also his submission that the notification about the establishment of the Market Committee was duly published consistent with the provisions of the Act, but the learned Magistrate has overlooked that fact and erred in recording the finding against the present appellants. He has urged to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate and convict the respondent.

5. Mr. Manoj Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has supported the judgment and o