2017 Supreme(Raj) 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, JJ.
M/s.Suman Gopaliya & Sons, through (partner) Naresh Kumar Gopaliya S/o Shri Ramavtar Gopaliya & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vishistha Shreni Alwar, naveen Mandi, Yard, Alwar through its Secretary Shri Yadunath Singh - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 782, 783, 784 of 1998
Decided On : 04-07-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Manju Joshi.
Headnote:
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Section 28 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 467 - Seek to assail orders – Cognizance - Penalty of contravention - Whether non-payment of market fee by trader on price of sale of market produce is or is not a continuing offence - Criminal miscellaneous petitions seek to assail orders passed by trial court whereby applications filed by petitioners Criminal Procedure for dropping criminal proceedings against them in trial for offence this court in view of conflicting opinion of different single benches as to whether or not offence is continuing one by order has made a reference for authoritative pronouncement - In all these matters complaints were filed by Secretary that accused firms by not making payment of market fee to have violated provisions of Act and were liable for punishment – Held, Binding decision of a Single Bench of this court was not cited before another Single Bench deciding case in Industries & Oil Mills Ltd. & Others supra - Supreme Court in Associate Builders Delhi Development Authority held that a Single Bench of High Court is bound by prior decision of another Single Bench of same High Court - Supreme Court in State of held that a Bench should ordinarily follow decision of a Coordinate Bench or else - It should forward matter to Chief Justice for constituting a Larger Bench in case reasoning and conclusion of Coordinate Bench is not acceptable – Order Accordingly
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
1. All these criminal miscellaneous petitions seek to assail orders passed by the trial court, whereby the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping the criminal proceedings against them in the trial for offence under Section 28 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’), have been rejected. A learned Single Judge of this court, in view of the conflicting opinion of different single benches as to whether or not the offence under Section 28 of the Act of 1961 is continuing one, by order dated 13.07.2007 has made a reference for authoritative pronouncement. In all these matters, the complaints were filed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar, that the accused firms by not making payment of the market fee to the Mandi Samiti have violated provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1961, and were liable for punishment under Section 28 of the Act of 1961. Learned Magistrate, in all these cases, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon filed application for dropping the proceedings of trial and for discharging them from the said offence. According to the petitioners, since the offence under Section 28 of the Act of 1961 is punishable with imprisonment of three months and fine, which may, in regard to offence under sub-section (1), extend to five hundred rupees, and in regard to offence under sub-section (2), may extend to one thousand rupees. The complaint, having been filed after expiry of limitation of one year, was, as per Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., liable to be dismissed as time barred. It was argued that the offence under Section 28 of the Act of 1961 is not continuing offence and the offence being not continuing one, complaint ought to have been filed within one year.
2. In order to better appreciate the dispute, it is considered apposite to reproduce Sections 17 and 28 of the Act of 1961, which read thus,
“17. Power to collect market fees. – The market committee shall collect market fees from the Licences in the prescribed manner on agricultural produce bought or sold by them in the market area at such rate as may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the official gazette, subject to a maximum of Rs 2/- per hundred rupees worth of agricultural produce.
[Provided also that Mandi Fee leviable on the sale or purchase of Mustard Seed shall be Rs. 1/- on one hundred rupees.]
[Provided also that Mandi Fee leviable on the sale or purchase of Oil Seeds shall be Rs. 1/- on one hundred rupees.]”
“28. Penalty of contravention of certain provisions. – (1) Whoever contravenes the provision of section 4 shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months and with fine which may extend to two thousand Rupees and in case of continuing contravention, with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the contravention is continued after the first conviction.
(2) Any person who intentionally evades the payment of any market fee payable under section 17 shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. The Magistrate shall, in addition to any fine which may be imposed, recover summarily and pay to the market committee, the amount of market fees due and may, in his discretion, also recover summarily and pay to the market committee such amount, if any, as he may fix as the cost of prosecution.
(3) Whoever obstructs the secretary or officer authorised for the purpose by the State Government, in entering any shop, godown, factory or any place or taking out the copies of entries in the accounts, registers or other documents or seizing the documents under section 27-B shall, on conviction, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which mat extend to three months