IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1448/2013 BETWEEN H OMKARAPPA, PROPRIETOR, M/S. N.R.HALAGAPPA AND SONS, A-3, APMC YARD, SHIMOGA - 577201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S B TOTAD, ADV.) AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE (APMC), APMC YARD, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SWAROOP, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.47/12 C.C.NO.1039/12, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.C.J., AND JMFC, SHIMOGA THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 114, 115, 117A AND 122 OF KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT 1966. AND BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED IN C.C.NO.1039/12, TAKING COGNISANCE OF THE OFFENCES, THEREBY ORDERING TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETR. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 114, 115, 117A AND 122 OF KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT 1966.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him in PCR No.47/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 111,115,117-A and 122 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1966 (in short the `APMC’ Act).
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that, the petitioner’s firm is doing areca nut business at Shivamogga. It has obtained the traders licence. The licence is issued subject to the terms and conditions which are mandatory in nature. Inspite of it, the petitioner failed to produce the documents pertaining to the accounts of the business carried on during the year 2010-2011. Further allegations are that, the petitioner failed to pay the market cess of Rs.1,68,546/- and a fine of Rs.50,564/- totally amounting to Rs.2,19,110/-. Thus, the petitioner has violated Section 65(2A) (1A) and 81 of the Act which are punishable under Sections 114, 115, 117A and 122 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has regularly maintained all the accounts. Account books were submitted along with reply to the legal notice. He has brought this fact to the notice of the complainant and therefore, allegations made against the petitioner regarding non-maintenance of the account is false to the core. Consequently, he contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay cess demanded by the complainant. The petitioner has purchased the commodities from outside the State and same was sale outside the State. The petitioner is liable to pay the cess only if sale transaction is carried within the market area and hence, the claim raised by the petitioner itself being, prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is bad in law and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s.ITC Ltd., v. State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2005 KARNATAKA 330.
5. Refuting the above submission, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations made against the petitioner squarely fall within Section 65(2A) (1A) and 81 of the Act. The petitioner has failed to produce the relevant accounts pertaining to the year 2010-11 and for the said period, he also failed to pay cess and hence, prosecution has been launched against the petitioner and it does not suffer from any vices which call for interference by this Court.
6. The contentions urged by the petitioner are based on disputed questions of fact which in my view cannot be decided under Section 482 of Cr.PC. The allegations made against the petitioner squarely fall within the purview of Section 65(2A) (1A) and 81 of the Act. If the petitioner is in possession of the account books for the relevant period and he is liable to pay cess for the said period, it is open for the petitioner to produce the relevant documents of the transactions relating to such period before the concerned and establish that the entire transaction has been carried outside the State and therefore, he is not liable to pay cess under Section 65(2A) (1A) and 81 of the Act. The said question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to canvass the above contentions before the trial Court by producing necessary documents in this regard, the petition is dismissed.
Sk/- CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE