Karnataka High Court
M/S.Daneshwari Company vs The Agriculture Produce Marketing ... on 11 January, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100151 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.DANESHWARI COMPANY
GENERAL MERCHANTS
M-14, MARKET YARD, BELGAUM
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
R/BY ITS PARTNERS
1A) SHRI SHRISHAIL GIDDAPPA KHADABADI
1B) DAYANAND SIDDAPPA KHADABADI
BOTH ARE MAJORS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. BHANDUR GALLI,
BELGAUM
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANKIT DESAI, ADV. FOR
SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH , ADV.)
AND:
THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
Digitally signed
by SUJATA
APMC YARD, BELGAUM
SUBHASH
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY
PAMMAR
.....RESPONDENT
DHARWAD
BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.01.31
11:55:19 +0530
(BY SRI. C V ANGADI, ADV.)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
CONVICTION DATED 03.04.2014 PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELGAUM, IN CRL.A.NO.178/2005 CONFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 26.08.2005 IN
C.C.NO.232/2001 PASSED BY THE JMFC IV-COURT, BELGAUM.
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in C.C.No.232/2001 dated 26.08.2005 on the file of JMFC-Iv Court, Belagavi and confirmed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.178/2005 vide judgment dated 3rd April 2014.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to with the original rankings occupied by them before the Trial Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant/APMC has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for short) in P.C.No.65/2000 alleging that the accused have committed offence under Sections 114 and 117 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966 -3- CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC Act', for short) and have failed to pay the market fee as required under the Act. Initially recovery proceedings initiated in the year 1979. However, later on the matter was remanded to APMC to decide after affording a reasonable opportunity before initiating recovery proceedings. In spite of sufficient opportunities, accused failed to pay the market fee for the years 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982, totally amounting to Rs.74,177/- and hence, it is alleged that they are liable to pay three times the penalty. When the accused were called upon to pay the said amount by issuing notice, the accused failed to make the payment. Hence, by the resolution, the Secretary of APMC was authorised to lodge the complaint and initiated the prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 114 and 117 of the Act. Initially plea was recorded only under Section 117 of the Act and the accused were held guilty and in appeal, the matter was remanded back with a direction to record the plea under Section 114 of the Act. Thereafter the plea was recorded under Section 114 of the -4- CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014 Act and no fresh evidence was adduced by either of the parties. After the trial, the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused by sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each with default sentence of three months. The said judgment came to be challenged in Crl.A.No.178/2005 before the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi and the same came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for revision petitioners/accused and learned H.C.G.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would mainly harp on the point that the prosecution is hit under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that initially for the similar offence, the petitioners were prosecuted which has ended in acquittal. Hence, the claim of the prosecution suffers under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
-5-CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014
6. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant/ APMC would support the judgment and further contend that no document has been produced to prove that there is any prosecution for a particular period as referred in the present complaint and both the Courts have elaborately discussed this aspect and arrived at a just conclusion. Hence, he would seek for dismissal of the revision.
7. Having heard the arguments it is evident that all along the revision petitioners have raised the issue that complaint is hit by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as they were initially prosecuted but on perusal of the records, no evidence is placed to show that the present accused were prosecuted for some charges and that matter ended in acquittal. Except bald assertion and reference made to C.C.No.1272/1986, no document is produced to substantiated this contention. Even the said judgment in C.C.No.1272/1986 is not placed on record and marked and opportunity was not given to the complainant to contradict the same. However, the said judgment was produced only -6- CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014 at the time of hearing of appeal. Even on perusal of the said judgment, it does not disclose that there was any prosecution for the particular charge or period. Hence, even in the cross-examination of complainant, it is not substantiated. Except defence under Section 300 of Cr.P.C., no specific defence is raised and both the Courts i.e., learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have appreciated this aspect and concurrently held that the complaint is not hit by Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Even the limitation issue was answered against the accused and that point is not challenged in this revision. The ground urged regarding the prosecution being hit under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. is not substantiated by the complainant and except bald assertion, no material documents have been placed that the findings are arbitrary or perverse. In such circumstances, the question of interference with the order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the first Appellate Court does not arise at all. The revision petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for -7- CRL.RP No. 100151 of 2014 consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The revision petition stands dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2005 passed in C.C.No.232/2001 on the file of JMFC-IV Court, Belagavi and confirmed by the I Addl.
Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.A.No.178/2005 vide judgment dated 3.04.2014.
Send back the TCRs to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for compliance.
Sd/-
JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38