Karnataka High Court
M/S Rawther Spices P Ltd vs The Agriculture Produce Marketing ... on 25 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48150
CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6270 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAWTHER SPICES (P) LTD.
NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD
4TH BLOCK, GOREGUNTEPALYA
TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI. SYED M. RAWTHER
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
NANDINI B G
Location: THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
high court of RAMANAGARA
karnataka RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.272/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. J.M.F.C., RAMANAGARA, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 115, 116, 117 &
117A OF THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE (REGULATION) ACT 1966 AND RULES THEREUNDER
AGAINST THE ACCUSED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48150
CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being the accused in CC No.272 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramanagara, for the offences under Sections 114, 115, 116, 117, 117A of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short 'the APMC Act') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent has filed the private complaint in PCR No.4 of 2007 against the accused alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is contended that the petitioner is the importer and exporter of spices and is carrying on business in the APMC yard without obtaining licence, without maintaining accounts and without complying the statutory requirements of the APMC Act. Thereby contravened Section 8 of APMC Act and therefore, he is liable for penalties under the penal provisions.
3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and registered CC No.272 of 2008. The petitioner being the accused -3- NC: 2024:KHC:48150 CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012 is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him.
4. Heard Sri A Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A C Balaraj, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition Nos.9985 of 2017 connected with 48877 of 2015 and 48878 of 2015 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 therein for recovery of market fee. An interim order of stay was granted in this petition in favour of the present petitioner to be considered subject to the result of those writ petitions. All the three writ petitions came to be disposed off by passing the common order dated 18.04.2024 holding that the recovery shall be subject to the provisions contained in IBC. Therefore, he contends that even the recovery proceedings before the Trial Court in CC No.272 of 2008 may be subject to the proceedings i.e., pending before the APMC. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition passing similar order. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:48150 CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the petition submitted that for contravention of Section 8 of APMC Act, penalties are provided under Sections 114, 115,116, 117, 117A of APMC Act. Even writ petitions referred to by the petitioner came to be dismissed by holding that liability imposed on the petitioner towards payment of market fees is valid and the same is confirmed. However, it is held that only the recovery of payment which is due from the petitioner was subject to the provisions contained in IBC. He submitted that the criminal case is pending before the Trial Court against the petitioner invoking penal provisions for prosecuting him for violation of the provisions of APMC Act. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:48150 CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
8. It is the contention of the complainant - respondent that the petitioner carried on business without obtaining licence and without maintaining the books of accounts and records. For contravening Section 8 of APMC Act, separate proceedings appears to have been initiated for recovery of market fees. The said order passed by the Director and Appellate Authority of APMC was challenged in the writ petitions referred to above. Admittedly, the said writ petitions came to be disposed off confirming the order imposing the market fees. However, recovery of the same was held to be subject to the provisions contained in IBC, as it is stated that Company is into liquidation.
9. In the present case, the respondent has filed the private complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 114, 115, 116, 117 and 117A of the APMC Act. Admittedly, the proceedings before the Trial Court was not for recovery of any fees, but it is for prosecution. Simply because, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:48150 CRL.P No. 6270 of 2012 in the writ petitions, it is held that the recovery is subject to the provisions of IBC, similar order cannot be passed in the present case, as in CC No.272 of 2008 pending before the Trial Court, no recovery is being initiated, but it is for the prosecution for the commission of offences, which is already stated. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/-
CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23