The Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the complaint in S.T.C.No.314 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
2.The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows:
(i) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred as merchant and the respondent is referred as Superintendent. The merchant is doing ground nuts and other agricultural crop business and running his shop at Dindigul township in the name and style of ?V.V.Ramasamy Chettiar and Company?. The merchant purchased raw materials and finished products and after processing the same, he exports the products to various countries.
(ii) While so, the merchant exported 230 tones of ground nuts from 01.04.2000 to 28.04.2000. After verifying the export done by the merchant, the Superintendent found that there was violation by the merchant under Section 24(1) of The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1989.
(iii) The said Act clearly says that if the merchant purchases the ground nuts outside the notified area and if he has not exported the ground nuts within 30 days, the merchant has to pay market fee to the Market committee. In the present case, the merchant has procured raw materials from outside market area. However, he did not pay the market fee to the Market Committee, thereby, the respondent after conducting investigation filed a complaint in S.T.C.No.314 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Original Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner procured the ground nuts in and around Dindigul District and the same was exported within a period of 30 days as per the condition imposed by Section 24(1) of The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in fact the respondent initially sent a demand notice to the petitioner and the petitioner gave a suitable reply to the respondent. However, without considering the reply letter sent by the petitioner, the respondent filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul.
5.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of GTN Enterprises Limites, Udumalpet and another -vs- Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Udumalpet and another reported in AIR 2017 MADRAS 1; wherein it has been held as follows:
?188.The legislature thought fit not to levy market fee for the goods brought and processed or exported within 30 days and added proviso clause to
Section 24 to that efect. Therefore, the demand of market fee under
Section 24 of the Act made on the cotton waste, which was stocked beyond 30 days within the notified market area from the appellants/petitioners is valid one.?
6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner purchased the raw materials and the same was exported within 30 days. As per Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1989, if the raw materials were exported within a period of 30 days, there is no need to pay market fees to the Market Committee. However, the petitioner did not produce any material evidence to prove that he purchased raw materials and after processing the raw materials, he exported the same within 30 days and further even after repeated written intimations, he has not produced any documents relating to his business transaction. Hence, the complaint lodged by the respondent is a perfect one and there is no need to interfere with the complaint.
7.It is useful to refer Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1989, which reads as follows:
?24.Levy of fee by market committee-(1) The market committee shall levy a fee on any notified agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area at a rate not less than one rupee but not exceeding two rupees for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce is bought or sold whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration:
Provided that, when any agricultural produce brought into any notified market area for the purpose of processing only, or for export is not processed or exported therefrom within thirty days from the date of its arrival therein, it shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been brought into such notified market area for buying and selling, and shall be subject to the levy of fee under this Section on the value of the agricultural produce, as if it had been bought and sold therein?
8.On perusal of the above provision, the market committee shall levy a fee and any notified agricultural products bought or sold in any notified market area for the purpose of processing only, or for export is not processed or exported therefrom within 30 days from the date of its arrival therein, it shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been brought into such notified market area for buying and selling and shall be subject to the levy of fee under this Section on the value of the agricultural produce, as if it had been bought and sold therein. However, it is also relevant to mention the complainant's allegation made in the complaint, which reads as follows:
?11. It is submitted that for exemption of market fee, there are three conditions to be fulfilled.
(i)The notified agricultural produces should be brought from outside of the notified market area of Dindigul.
(ii) It is meant for export in full.
(iii) It is should be exported there from within 30 days from the date of its arrival therein.?
9.The main allegation in the aforesaid complaint against the petitioner is that the notified agricultural produces should be brought from outside the market area of Dindigul and therefore, there is violation of
Section 24(1) of the Act. However, the respondent has agreed to two other conditions which are in consonance with
Section 24(1) of the Act. As per proviso to
Section 24(1) agricultural products for the purpose of processing or for export, if processed products exported within 30 days, there is no need to pay any market fee. Admittedly, the agricultural products were exported from the notified area to the foreign areas. The purpose of exemption granted to the exporter from paying the market fee is to encourage the export business and to earn foreign currency to our country. For that purpose, the exporter was granted exception in paying market fees. In the present case, the respondent has also admitted in the complaint that the petitioner procured the ground nuts which were exported within a period of 30 days. Therefore, I am inclined to quash the complaint in S.T.C.No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. Accordingly, the complaint in S.T.C.No.314 of 2010 is quashed.
10.In fine, the Criminal Original Petition is Allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Superintendent, Regulated Market, Dindigul Market Committee, Dindigul.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.
.