The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1231 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1268 OF 2016 IN CRL.RP No. 1231/2016 BETWEEN: SHANKAR TRADING CO., 6TH MAIN, APMC YARD BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 561202 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BATAWADI, TUMAKURU - 561202 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.58/2015 AND ETC. IN CRL.RP NO. 1268/2016 BETWEEN: SHANKAR TRADING CO 6TH MAIN, APMC YARD BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-561202 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-561202 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI SWAROOP T, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED BY THE LEAVE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT TUMKURU IN CRL.A.NO.10/2016 AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.R.P. Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016. 2. The Crl.R.P.Nos.1231/2016 is arising out of allowing Crl.A.No.58/2015 wherein an order of the Trial Court passed in C.C.No.2073/2007 dated 10.08.2015 was confirmed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 65 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the said Act’) wherein the Trial Court imposed the fine of Rs.3,000/- and the First Appellate Court enhanced the same to Rs.11,205/- and the same is in respect of shortage of commodity when inspection was conducted by the respondent on 30.11.2006. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1268/2016 also filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.10/2016 challenging the order passed in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 C.C.No.2073/2007 and the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, these revision petitions i.e., Crl.R.P.Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016 are filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said cases is that both the Courts have not justified in holding that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable for the maximum punishment as contend under Section 114, 117(A) of the said Act and the said order has been passed on assumption and presumption. Section 65 and 66 of the Act is based on the conjecture holding that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 65 and 66 of the said Act and there is no evidence to substantiate the charge leveled against the petitioner and there is complete misleading of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the Courts. 4. The counsel for the respondent has not disputed Ex.D1 to D5 which are the receipts for payment of market fee. Both the Courts comes to the conclusion - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 that total payment of market fee is Rs.5,265/- out of Rs.9,000/- and held that difference amount is Rs.3,735/- which is due amount and 3 times of said amount is Rs.11,205/-. Absolutely there is no logic behind passing such an order when the petitioner has shown stock of 1929 bags in the stock register book and the petitioner liable to pay market fee as per the stock shown in the register which has to be paid as and when sold. Even spot inspection conducted is not proved and so called drawing of mahazar is not proved and hence, the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside. 5. The counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that no dispute with regard to the fact that on 13.11.2006 inspection was conducted and there was shortage of 374 bags. Having taken note of shortage of bags, proceedings has been initiated stating that they have evaded the payment of market fee of Rs.27,000/- and also the petitioner has not disputes the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 fact that there was a shortage of 374 bags. Taking note of the factual aspects of the case, both the Courts considered Section 65 of the said Act and also Sections 114, 116, 117(A) of the said Act and rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner committed an error. However, the Trial Court only imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- instead of imposing three times more than what was due. The counsel also contends that the First Appellate Court committed an error in only enhancing the amount to Rs.11,205/- when the Trial Court committed an error in imposing the fine of Rs.3,000/- which ought to have made as three times penalty on the amount which was due. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is the specific case of the respondent that when inspection was conducted i.e., on 13.11.2006, there was a shortage of 374 bags and ought to have been paid amount on the market value on the said bags and though the Trial Court comes to the conclusion - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 that offence under Section 65 of the said Act is committed, only imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- and same has been enhanced to Rs.11,205/- by the First Appellate Court. But the fact that 374 bags were deficit when inspection was conducted and the same is not disputed seriously by the petitioner herein. When inspection was conducted and found shortage of bags and punishment prescribed under Section 114 of the said Act for commission of offence punishable under Section 65 of the said Act and proviso also very clear that three times the amount of market fee on any other amount due which may extend and same ought to have been taken note of by the Trial Court but only imposed Rs.3,000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 65 of the said Act and same has been enhanced by the First Appellate Court taking into note of the fact that ought to have been enhanced the same and hence enhanced to Rs.11,205/-. Having considered the reasons and particular provision of Section 65 as well as Section 114 of the said Act, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in reversing the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4308 CRL.RP No. 1231 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1268 of 2016 same by allowing Crl.A.no..58/2015 and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in Crl.A.No.10/2016 considering the material available on record. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to allow the revision petition Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016 when not found any perversity in the finding and the First Appellate Court while considering the material available on record and modified the judgment of the Trial Court enhancing the fine amount to Rs.11,205/- as against Rs.3,000/- in respect of Section 65 of the said Act is concerned and in respect of Section 66 of the said Act having imposed the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- is concerned, the same is confirmed. When such being the case, no grounds are made out to allow the above revision petitions. Hence, Crl.R.P. Nos.1231/2016 and 1268/2016 are dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN