The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 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. 1232 OF 2016 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1269 OF 2016 IN CRL.RP No. 1232/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAR TRADING CO., 6TH MAIN, APMC YARD BATAWADI, TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PIN CODE: 561 202. (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BATAWADI, TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN CODE:561 202. (BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C OF PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.59/2015 AND THE ORDER OF DATED 10.08.2015, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I AT TUMAKURU IN C.C.NO.452/2008. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 IN CRL.RP NO. 1269/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAR TRADING CO., 6TH MAIN, APMC YARD BATAWADI, TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. ROOPA W/O RAJU @ RAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PIN CODE: 561 202 (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BATAWADI, TUMAKURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN CODE:561 202. ...RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SWAROOP T., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CRL.A.NO.11/2016 AND THE ORDER OF DATED 10.08.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL IN JMFC-I C.C.NO.452/2008. TUMAKURU JUDGE AND AT THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions. 2. These two revision petitions are filed against the order of the Trial Court in C.C.No.452/2008 as well as Crl.A.No.59/2015 challenging the order of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court by filing Crl.R.P.No.1232/2016 and also against the order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.11/2016. 3. The case of the respondent/APMC before the Trial Court by filing the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 67 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, contending that the petitioner herein though transacted to the tune of Rs.92,52,718/- but not paid the market fee and hence invoked Section 65 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 and 66 of the Act and also Section 114 and 117(A) of the said act. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, convicted the petitioner and ordered to pay the fine of Rs.3,000/- and also imposed the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences under Section 66 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the APMC also filed the appeal in Crl.A.No.59/2015 contending that fine imposed is meager and ought not to have imposed the said fine and proviso under Section 114, 117A ought to have imposed three times of the amount on the market fee payable by the petitioner and also the revision petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.11/2016 contending that the very conviction and sentence is erroneous and it requires interference and the same was dismissed. Hence, both the orders are challenged before this Court by filing revision petition contending that both the Courts are justifying in holding that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 114, Section 117A of the Act and also Section 65 and Section 66. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 5. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that though he admits that the transaction was taken place for an amount of Rs.92,52,718/- and contend that the transaction taken place within the APMC market area only to the tune of Rs.37,72,985/- and on that amount 1.5% would be Rs.56,959/- and the same has been paid. In Ex.D2 there is no mentioning of the date and receipt number. In the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, admitted about obtaining signatures on the books submitted by the petitioner and also admitted that the respondent has not imposed any penalty of the petitioner for non-submission of account books, ignoring all these materials, learned judge has wrongly hold that the petitioner has to pay market fee of Rs.92,52,718/- which is totally illegal and liable to be set-aside. 6. The counsel would vehemently contend that the very approach of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court is erroneous and also contend that additional document are placed before this Court for having made - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 the payment and the same was not taken note of by the Trial Court and if taken note of liability arises for payment. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the petitioner has been exempted in respect of 71 lakhs and odd, no question of payment is ordered by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court committed an error and Trial Court also committed an error once the amount has been paid, ought not to have convicted the petitioner for the said offences. 7. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,38,790/- is payable and also passed an order for three times, in all directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,16,372/- and once the amount was paid, question of imposing the fine three times does not arise. 8. The counsel would submits for having paid the amount, ordered to produce the receipts before the Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 and the same also not taken note of by the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court. 9. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that claim made by the respondent is Rs.1,38,790/- and also counsel was directed to verify with regard to the payment made and documents which have been placed before this Court by the petitioner in the earlier date of hearing. The counsel brought to notice of this Court they have made the payment through bank for an amount of Rs.44,503/- and cash for an amount of Rs.2022/- in all made the payment of Rs.46,525/- but not paid as claimed by the revision petitioner that is for sum of Rs.56,595/-. The counsel would vehemently contend that the notice was issued to the revision petitioner in terms of Ex.P3, categorically asked the petitioner to give details with regard to the notified commodity was sold but inspite of reply was given in terms of Ex.D2 that only Rs.37,72,985/- was sold in the APMC market and not sold the same. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 10. The counsel would contend that ought not to have made the payment of market fee on Rs.92,52,718/- since they have not disputed the same and in the evidence also having transacted and respondent also collected the details from Commercial Tax Office with regard to the transaction of Rs.92,52,718/-. The very contention the learned counsel for revision petitioner that with regard to the remaining amount there was an exemption, no documents are placed for having taken the exemption. Apart from that even notified and non notified product also no document is placed before the Court and when such being the case, once they admits that transaction was made to the tune of Rs.92,52,718/- though ordered to pay for 1.5% on that amount and it comes to Rs.1,38,790/- and that is the claim made. The Trial Court committed an error only imposing Rs.3,000/- and hence an appeal is filed before the Trial Court in Crl.A.No.59/2015 and the same is rightly allowed taking into note of the material and rejected rightly the appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A.No.11/2016 and detailed order has been passed by - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 the Trial Court while passing the order even taken note of the materials particularly the claim of the petitioner in paragraph No.15 and also considering the liability of Rs.1,38,790-77/- but committed an error in calculating and comes to the conclusion that for an amount of Rs.4,16,372-31/- and same ought to have been 4 times fine would be to 3 times and market fee payable also to be added but admitted that no appeal is filed by the respondent. 11. In reply to the argument, the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that when the exemption was given in respect of the remaining amount is concerned, question of payment does not arise and the same has not been disputed. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent and also the material available on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court are: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 1) Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed an error in convicting and enhancing the payment of fine as ordered by this Court and whether it requires interference by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 2) What Order? 13. Having heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent, it is not in dispute that for a particular period, transaction was made to the tune of Rs.92,52,718/- and it is not in dispute that when the notice was issued in terms of the Ex.P.3, reply was given in terms of Ex.D2. Having produced the Ex.P3, it is very clear that the petitioner was accepted to give details about the notified product sold but reply in terms of Ex.D2 and it is very clear that only amount of Rs.37,72,985,/- transaction was made for the APMC and not in respect of remaining amount and remaining amount also claimed in the exemption and it has to be noted that when the exemption is claimed, no order as prayed before - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 this Court for having exempted and also it is important to note that details was sought regarding non-notified and notified commodity is concerned and no document also placed along with Ex.D2. 14. It is also important to note that when the Ex.P3 is very clear with regard to accepting the details of notified agricultural product transaction and counsel would vehemently contend that when the exemption was given in respect of the remaining amount is concerned, question of payment does not arise and this ground is urged before this Court. Having considered the evidence of DW1, no doubt the revision petitioner says that Ex.P3 notice was issued but reply was given in terms of the Ex.D2 and the same was sent through courier and courier receipt got marked as Ex.D3 and also claims that in the year 2005-06 book also produced and the same is marked as Ex.D4 and also stock book is marked as Ex.D5 and also says that Commercial Tax Officer also countersigned and affixed the seal and Ex.D6 also produced and the same is also counter - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 signed and so also Ex.D7 is the day book and witness was cross examined before the Trial Court and categorically admits that for the year 2005 and 2006 an amount of Rs.92,52,718/- transaction was made and suggestion was made that amount of market fee was not paid and the same was denied and claims that payment of market fee and documents are produced that is Ex.D4 to Ex.D7 and APMC Secretary has signed the same and also Deputy Director also given notice on 14.02.2007 and 27.04.2007 and suggestion was made that no reply was given and the same was denied. 15. Having considered the evidence of revision petitioner and except marking of document at Ex.D2, nothing is explained with regard to the exemption is concerned which is claimed before this Court. In the absence of any exemption order as well as taking into of Ex.P3, it is very clear with regard to the notified commodity is concerned, notice was given and no doubt the respondent also not passed any order on the reply and - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 though passed the resolution that they have to pay the amount of Rs.92,52,718/-. When the transaction was taken place to the tune of Rs.92,52,718/- and when the revision petitioner claims the exemption, no such exemption order was also passed and mere mentioning in the document of Ex.D4 that in the APMC only Rs.37,72,985/- transaction was taken place and in respect of remaining is concerned, though claimed exemption, nothing is placed on record even not placed any document that the said transaction is in respect of non-notified commodity. The petitioner also not disputes the fact that he did the sale transaction of coriander and other than coriander he has not sold the same, the same is a notified as agricultural product and not non-notified product and these are the materials also taken note of by the First Appellate Court by reversing the order of the Trial Court and reasoned order has been passed by the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion and the very contention of the revision petitioner is raised before this Court with regard to the exemption in respect of remaining amount and no such material is placed before - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 the Court and when the revision petitioner admits that transaction to the tune of Rs.92,52,718/- and when the respondent made the claim on the said amount, market fee payable, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in reversing the finding and modifying and passing such order. 16. It is important to note that the documents are placed before this Court for having made the payment to the tune of Rs.46,525/- though claims that an amount of Rs.56,595/- was paid but in respect of difference amount also not placed any document before this Court. No doubt these documents are not placed before the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court however, this Court directed the respondent to verify and submit whether they have made the payment and respondent also not disputes the fact that they have made the payment of Rs.46,525/- and hence this Court has to reduce the same from the amount of Rs.1,38,790/- and if the same is reduced it comes to Rs.92,265/- and Trial Court also considered the said fact - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016 into consideration, though counsel for respondent would contend that the same should be 4 times, but the Trial Court taken note of 3 times including the market fee, but no appeal is filed by the respondent with regard to the difference amount of the same. When such being the case, when the First Appellate Court taken note of provisions under Section 114 as well as Section 117A it comes to 3 times as Rs.2,76,795/- and not as Rs.4,16,372/- and in view of the deducting the same, the order impugned passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.59/2015 to be modified by exercising the revisional jurisdiction since material on record is very clear for having made the part payment. Hence, both the revision petitions requires to be allowed, though one is dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court and another is for allowing of the appeal and both requires to be modified. 17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:4737 CRL.RP No. 1232 of 2016 C/W CRL.RP No. 1269 of 2016
Decision
ORDER i) Both the revision petitions are allowed in part. ii) The order passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.59/2015 and also the Crl.A.No.11/2016 are modified directing the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,76,795/- as against the amount of Rs.4,16,372/-. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54