Order: In this petition, the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary in C.C.No. 556 of 1973 for having committed an offence punishable under section 66 read with section 122 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), sentencing each one of the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and further confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1974, are challenged.

2. The undisputed facts are that petitioner 1 is a firm and the remaining petitioners are partners of the said firm Respondent 1 the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bellary, found that the petitioners had not paid the market fee etc., and hence called upon them to do so. In the said process he directed the petitioners by writing letter Exhibit P-4 to produce account books etc. He sent Exhibit P-4 in exercise of his powers - as is clear from Exhibit P-4 itself - under section 66 of the Act and read with Government Notification Nos. D.P.C. 468 C.M.D. 68 dated 19th July. 1969. The petitioners failed to comply with what was demanded in Exhibit P-4. Ulimately the Secretary prosecuted the petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under sections 65 and 81 read with rule 86 of the Act. The petitioners were acquitted of the latter mentioned offences.

3. Shri B.V. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that the respondent secretary had issued Exhibit P-4 and the petitioners did not at all produce the account books as called upon by Exhibit P-4. He urged that the view taken by the two Courts that the residuary section, namely, section 122 of the Act, applies is not correct. He argued that under section 66 of the Act, only power is given to the Secretary or an officer empowered by the State to that effect to call upon a dealer, in the notified agricultural produce to produce his account books etc., and no obligation is cast on the dealer making it incumbent on him to produce. He in this connection pointed out from the said section that in case of failure to produce, such officer has been further empowered to enter into the premises, search and seize necessary documents and other material to enable the committee to look into the question of recovery of market fee etc. He took me through sections 114 to 122 in Chapter XII of the Act, dealing with penalties and argued that failure to comply with an order or direction issued by such an officer under section 66 of the Act is not made penal and as such a prosecution cannot lie.

4. Sri A.H. Bhagawan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Secretary urged that section 66 gives power to the Secretary, who is so empowered to direct a dealer to produce the account books and when a Secretary so empowered issues a direction, a dealer contravenes the provision of the Act and hence section 122 of the Act would be applicable, therefore, the conviction passed on the petitioners has to be sustained.

5. By Exhibit P-4 the Secretary called upon the petitioners to produce certain account books. The petitioners did not produce. Now the question is whether by so disobeying the direction contained in Exhibit P-4, the petitioners have committed any offence under the Act.

6. Section 66 of the Act reads as follows:

"66. Power to order production of accounts and power of entry, inspection and seizure.-

(1) Any officer or servant of the Market committee empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, for purposes of this Act, require any person carrying on business in any kind of notified agricultural produce to produce before him the accounts and other documents and to furnish any information relating to the stocks of such agricultural produce, or purchases, sales and deliveries of such agricultural produce by such person and also any other information relating to payment of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document