Mere payment of farmers' dues after initiation of criminal proceedings, especially after a long delay, does not warrant quashing of prosecution under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act.

CAV ORDER

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

1. Petitioners, in both these cases, are traders in different market yards of Bengaluru coming under the precincts of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (‘APMC’). Criminal Petition 3596 of 2023 calls in question proceedings in C.C.No.26219 of 2019 and Criminal Petition No.3896 of 2023 calls in question proceedings in C.C.No.26218 of 2019, both registered for offences punishable under Sections 75 , 78 and 78A of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for short). Since the facts and issue being common, these petitions are taken up together and disposed by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts obtaining in Criminal Petition 3596 of 2023 would be narrated.

2. Heard Smt. Shilpa Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Swaroop T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

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

3.1. In the year 2017 one B.L.Jagadeesh, accused No.1 in C.C.No.26219 of 2019, a licensed commission agent, sets up M/s Sri Kenchamba Traders, a trader of potato, onions and ginger in the APMC yard and is also allotted a shop-cum-godown No.191 at Dasanapura on lease and license basis. Towards the end of the year 2018, several traders failed to pay farmers’ dues due to a lock down in the business. The farmers then complained to the APMC and thereupon the APMC issues notices to the petitioners to clear the dues payable to several farmers, two of whom had complained in C.C.No.26219 of 2019. On 08-03-2019 the APMC passed a resolution resolving to file a case against the petitioner for cancellation of the licence under Section 78A of the Act. In terms of the resolution, the licence granted to accused No.1 stood cancelled.

3.2. Contemporaneously, the APMC initiated two criminal cases by registering two separate private complaints against the accused in both the cases, both on 27-09-2019. Insofar as Criminal Petition No.3596 of 2023 is concerned, the amount of recovery sought to be recovered was ₹4,37,000/- and Criminal Petition No.3896 of 2023 is concerned, the amount sought to be recovered was ₹2,55,000/-. In both the cases the recovery was for sale of onions and the farmers were not paid. On 04-10-2019, the concerned Court takes cognizance in both the cases and registers C.C.No.26219 of 2019 and C.C.26218 of 2019. After taking cognizance of the offence, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3896 of 2023 clears the dues of farmers which was quantified at ₹2,55,000/- on 04-05-2020 and submitted an acknowledgment of receipt of amount before the Secretary, APMC. Notwithstanding the same, it appears the allotment of go-down was cancelled which led the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3896 of 2023 to file Writ Petition No.14052 of 2021 which comes to be allowed and the allocation stands restored. After the said restoration, the subject petition is preferred seeking quashment of entire proceedings in C.C.No.26218 of 2019. Identical challenge is made in the companion petition as well.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaints. All the dues of farmers are paid on 04-05-2020 and 13-05-2020. Even then, the licence stood cancelled. A coordinate Bench of this Court on the score that entire amount has been paid has restored the licence of the go-down. For dishonor of cheques given to farmers or to the APMC to be delivered to the farmers it was always open to the APMC to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but, the proceedings are init