Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15043
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAJESH RAI K, J
THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEGAL ENFORCEMENT CELL (NORTH) – Appellant
Versus
M/S. M.M. HANCHINMANI – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100174 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.I. Gachchinamath
For the Respondents: A.A. Mulawadmath
The appellate court maintained that acquittal should not be disturbed unless the lower court's judgment is perverse, reaffirming the necessity of substantiated evidence in prosecuting alleged violations.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - Sections 114, 115, 116, 117 and 117(A) - Acquittal of the accused for offences under the Act for unauthorized business - The trial court acquitted the accused on grounds of delayed notice and lack of evidence supporting the claim of unlawful business activities. (Paras 6, 10, 13)
(B) Appeal - Acquittal standard - The appellate court should not interfere unless there is a perverse or illegal judgment. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant alleged unauthorized trading of tamarind by the respondent in APMC without a license from 2001-2005 and sought payment of dues.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found insufficient evidence and delayed action, warranting acquittal of the accused.
Issues: Whether the trial court justified the acquittal of the accused based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal was upheld as the trial court's reasoning was plausible, and the evidence did not substantiate the charges.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding unauthorized tamarind trading. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 7) |
| 3. arguments on evidence and conclusions of the trial court. (Para 8) |
| 4. assessment of evidence and justification for acquittal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court affirms that appellate review must respect trial court's discretion. (Para 14) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
The appellant in this appeal has assailed the judgment in C.C.No.1579/2008 dated 11.01.2017 passed by the JMFC-II Court, Balagavi (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) whereby the Trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 114 , 117 and 117(A) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 , (for short “the Act”).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that the Deputy Director of Leal Enforcement Cell (North), APMC, Amargol Market Yard, Hubballi filed a private complaint under Section 200(a) of Cr.P.C., against the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114 , 115, 116, 117 and 117(A) of the Act alleging that the accused was running a business of tamarind i.e., notified agricultural produce, at APMC Belagavi since 2001-02 to 2004-05 without obtaining any licence from the APMC. It is also alleged that the accused has not paid the market fee as required under the Act. It is further alleged in the complaint that in the year 2006, the Secretary of APMC, Belagavi issued a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, Belagavi and sought for the details of business particulars submitted by the accused from the year 2001 to 2004. Accordingly, on 23.06.2006, the office of the Commercial Taxes, Belagavi replied and furnished the details of the business carried by the accused during the year 2001 to 2005. After scrutinizing the said details, the Secretary of APMC, Belagavi issued a notice to the accused demanding market fee and fine for unauthorized trade. Though the said notice was served to the accused, the accused neither replied nor paid the fine amount. On calculation, it is found that the accused had purchased tamarind worth ₹19,85,136/- between 2001 to 2004 without obtaining licence and without paying the market fee. As such, he is liable to pay ₹29,776/- as a fee as provided under Section 65(2) of the Act and also fine of ₹89,331/- as provided under Section 70 of the Act. Thus, in all the accused is liable to pay ₹1,19,108/- to the complainant. Hence, the private complaint was filed against the accused since he failed to pay the fee and fine by violating the provisions of the Act.
4. After taking cognizance of the offences, the Trial Court secured the presence of the accused and framed charges against him for the aforementioned offences.
5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the complainant examined one witness as PW1 and marked 5 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The accused neither examined any witness nor produced any document on his behalf.
6. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the aforementioned offences vide its judgment dated 11.01.2017 as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the complainant seeking to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and to convict the accused for the aforementioned offences.
7. I have heard Sri. G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. A.A. Mulawadmath, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is the Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective. He contended that the evidence of PW1-the officer of the APMC categorically establishes that the accused, without obtaining any licence from the APMC, had illegally and u
