IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 307 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. S.M.KAMAL PASHA, S/O LATE SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF GOLDEN HATCHERIES, OFF/AT NO. 3, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, BEHIND TANK BUND MILLERS ROAD, NEAR CONGRESS COMMITTEE OFFICE, BENGALURU – 560 052.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally THE JOINT DIRECTOR, signed by SANJEEVINI J ENFORCEMENT CELL, SOUTH ZONE, KARISHETTY AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPARTMENT, Location:

High Court of M.G.COMPLEX, APMC YARD, Karnataka YESHWANTHAPURA, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY:

SRI. B.M.PHALAKSHA, S/O LATE MALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, THE JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT CELL.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONDITION NO.C PASSED IN INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 BY HON’BLE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-70) IN CRL.A.NO.1977/2025 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the concerned Court in Criminal Appeal No.1977/2025.

2. Heard Zameer Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Swaroop T, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner is a poultry farmer and purchases maize from traders to feed his birds. He is said to be an end user and not a trader. Despite this fact, the respondent initiates proceedings without competence and sanction, is the averment in the petition. The concerned Court convicts the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 65 and 66 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 ('the Act', for short).

3.2. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the order of conviction. The petitioner/appellant challenges the order of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2025 before the First Appellate Court or before the Court of Session in Criminal Appeal No.1977/2025. The Appellate Court while suspending the sentence directs payment of 50% of deposit of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court within 30 days from the date of the said order, which would be from 19.12.2025. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order is at the doors of this Court seeking its quashment.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the concerned Court has no power to impose the said condition of deposit of 50% of the fine amount to the APMC while suspending the sentence. He would contend that the Appellate Court will have to answer the appeal on its merit.

There is no statutory backing for a direction to the Appellate Court to direct 50% of deposit and making it a condition precedent to the suspension of sentence.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.T.Swaroop would refute the submissions in contending that the Appellate Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., while entertaining the appeal, has all power to impose conditions as it deems fit and therefore, the order imposing the said condition does not warrant any interference, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass. As observed hereinabove, the issue does not relate to the merit of the appeal. A skeletal backdrop is necessary to be noticed to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be a poultry farmer as transactions with the APMC for purchase of several products that the farmers would get into the market, the petitioner does not mak