The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence to prove the accused's violation of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956, in cases involving business activities within the regulated market area.

JUDGMENT :

Indrajit Mahanty, J. - The present criminal appeal arises after the leave having been granted by this Court on 6.3.1990 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 165 of 1990. The Appellant-Secretary of Sakhigopal Regulated Market Committee has sought to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 22.12.1989 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri in 2(C)CC Case No. 185 of 1982 acquitting the Respondent from the charge u/s 21(a)(b) and (c) of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956 (in short "OAPM Act").

2. The essence of the case against the Respondent is that he had been carrying on business in buying and marketing coconuts within the area of Sakhigopal R.M.C. without obtaining licence from the authorities thereunder thereby attracting penalty u/s 21 of the said Act.

The Secretary of the R.M.C. inter alia, initiated a complaint case against the accused-Respondent alleging that he had been transacting business of purchasing coconuts and selling the same in the market within the area of the complainant's market and also collecting market fees from his customers without obtaining licence from the RMC concerned and without depositing the fees collected with the authorities. Accordingly, it was alleged that the Respondent had contravened the provisions of Sections 4(3) and 18 of the OAPM Act and thereby committed an offence under the said Act and is liable for punishment u/s 21(a)(b) and (c) of OAPM Act.

3. While the prosecution examined six witnesses on their behalf and exhibited thirty documents to establish its charge, the accused denied the allegation levelled and did not examine any witness on his behalf.

4. The trial Court on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, did not believe the evidence of P.W.2 since he has stated that he had not personally sold coconuts to the accused whereas the evidence of P.W.3 was treated as suspicious in nature since the said witness alleged to have seen the accused purchasing coconuts from P.W.2 while P.W.2 denied to have sold coconuts personally to the accused and having no direct knowledge about the transaction. In so far as the evidence of P.W.5, who is the Accountant, is concerned, his evidence was not similarly relied upon on the ground that it was alleged that the accused used to send slips through one Sagar Bhoi on three occasions, but no slip was produced relating to the transaction against which complaint was filed in the matter. The Accountant's evidence was not relied upon by the trial Court on the ground that in the Cash Book and in the challan, the name of the accused was mentioned on three occasions, but neither the challan nor the Cash Book had been filed before the Court to establish the aforesaid challan and the nature of transaction.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Trial Court came to hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the fact that the accused had sold coconuts to different persons at different places within the R.M.C. without any authority since no evidence in this respect has been addued.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that although various documents including the receipts issued by the accused-Respondent had been submitted in the proceeding, the trial Court had not made any reference to those documents and therefore, there has been total non-application of mind and non-consideration of relevant documents on record. According to him, the statement of Sagar Bhoi (since deceased), the cart-man of Shri Satyabadi Gopinath Deb Endowment recorded under Ext. 6 along with the report of the Secretary under Ext. 8 should have been relied upon by the trial Court and only because of the death of said Sagar Bhoi, his evidence, as recorded, ought not to have been ignored on the ground that Ext. 6 did not contain any certification to the effect that the said statement of Sagar Bhoi was dictated by him to the scribe. Apart from the above, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that various other doc