Judgment:
A.S. Nehra, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 584-DBA to 602-DBA of 1986 which are directed against the judgments dated 1-8-1986 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gidderbaha, by which the respondents in all the cases have been acquitted of the charge Under Section 37 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, as the complaint and the evidence in all these cases are identical.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that a complaint Under Section 6(3) read with Section 37 of, the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by the appellant. The contents of the complaint are that the Secretary of the Market Committee had been duly authorised by the Market Committee to lodge complaints Under Section 39(2) of the Act against the persons who contravene the provisions of the Act; rules and bye-laws made thereunder; that Under Section 6(3) of the Act, no person unless exempted by rules made under the Act shall, either for himself or on behalf of another person, or of the State Government within the notified market area, set up, establish, or continue or allow to be continued any place for the purchase, sale, storage and processing of the agricultural produce so notified; or purchase, sell, store or process such agricultural produce except under a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act; the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, and the conditions specified in the licence; and that whereas the respondent had been doing business in the purchase. Sale and storage of agricultural produce such as Gur, Shakkar, Khandsari and cotton seed since 1-4-1983 in the notified market area of the Market Committee without taking any licence under Section 10 of the Act, therefore, he contravened the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 37 of the Act.
3. Notice under Section 6(3) of the Act, punishable under Section 37 of the Act, was served upon the respondent. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its complaint, the appellant examined Jagjit Singh Walia PW-1, Secretary of the Market Committee; Darshan Singh PW-2, Mandi Supervisor, Market Committee; & Tarsem Sehgal PW-3, Record-keeper. Copy of notice Exhibit P-1, copy of resolution Exhibit P-2 and complaint Exhibit P-3 have also been relied upon.
5. In his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied the prosecution allegations and stated that it was a false complaint filed on account of personal enmity. In defence, the respondent examined Kewal Krishan DW-1 and Bhan Chand DW-2.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the shop of the respondent is situated within the notified area of the Market Committee and that the respondent is engaged in the purchase, sale and storage of agricultural produce which includes gur, shakkar, Khandsari and cotton seed. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that for the purchase, sale and storage of these items, it is necessary to obtain a licence from the Market Committee Under Section 10 of the Act and that the respondent is carrying on the above-mentioned business in the notified area of the Market Committee without obtaining a licence and so the respondent has committed an offence under Section 6(3) of the Act and is therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 37 of the Act.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent has not violated the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act and, therefore he is not liable to be convicted under Section 37 of the Act. He has further submitted that if the respondent had ever violated the provisions of the Act, then the Secretary of the Market Committee must have confiscated the goods or the account books of the respondent. He has relied upon Sections 33-A and 33-B of the Act and submitted that there is no evidence produced by the appellant that the Secretary of the Market Committee had ever checked the account books of the respondent to find out the violation of the Act, rules or bye-laws trade thereunder; or had seized the goods of the respondent. According to Section 13 (2) of the Act, which lays down the duties and powers of a Committee, every person licensed Under Section 10 or Section 13 and every person exempted Under Section 6 from taking out licence, shall, on demand by the Committee or any person authorised by it in this behalf furnish such information and returns, as may be necessary, for the proper enforcement of the Act, or the rules and bye-laws made thereunder. According to Section 33-A of the Act, any officer empowered by the Board in this behalf, may, for the purposes of this Act, require any dealer to produce before him the accounts and other documents and to furnish any information relating to the stock of agricultural produce or purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce by such person and also to furnish any other information relating to the payment of fees levied under the Act by such person. The Secretary or any other officer of the Board has also power under Section 33-B of the Act to stop vehicles when there is violation of the rules and this section lays down that at any time when so required by the Secretary of the Board or any other officer of the Board so authorized by the Secretary, the driver or any other person in-charge of any vehicle or other conveyance which is taken or proposed to be taken out of the notified market area, shall stop the vehicle or other conveyance, as the case may be, keep it stationary as long as may reasonably be necessary and allow the Secretary of the Board or such officer to examine the contents in the vehicle or other conveyance and inspect all records relating to the agricultural produce carried, and give his name and address and name and address of the owner of the vehicle or other conveyance and of the owner of the agricultural produce carried in such vehicle or other conveyance. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that, in this case, if there was any violation committed by the respondent and his annual return was more than Rs. 60,000/- then the Secretary must have inspected the account books of the respondent or had seized the vehicle in which, at any point of time, the respondent had brought any goods to the notified area of the Market Committee. Jagjit Singh Walia PW-1 deposed that the respondent imported gur, shakkar etc. from outside the State, stored in the shop and sold them in the shop itself. He admitted that the respondent did not sell goods by auction. He further deposed that he did not know as to which commodity the accused had sold, to whom and for what amount. Darshan Singh PW-2 also deposed that the respondent did not sell goods through auction; that he sells his goods while sitting inside his shop and that it is not necessary for the respondent to sell agricultural produce through auction. Jagjit Singh Walia PW-1 further deposed that the annual return of the respondent is about 3 1/2 lakhs. When Jagjit Singh Walia PW-1 neither knew even the nature of the business run by the respondent nor did he visit the shop of the respondent, then his estimation of the return of the respondent, is based on mere conjectures. Darshan Singh PW-2 deposed that the annual return of the respondent is about 4-5 lakhs and he admitted that it is based on estimation. Therefore, both these witnesses have given the annual return of the respondent merely on the basis of conjectures. The explanation to Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the Rules), lays down that, for the purpose of this clause and Clause (b) of Sub-rule (2), a person whose turnover of sales and purchases of agricultural produce does not exceed Rs. 60,000/- during a year, shall be treated as a petty retail shopkeeper. The appellant has failed to prove that the annual return of the respondent is more than Rs. 60,000/- after 1-4-1983.
8. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is a retail shopkeeper, because he sells his goods within the premises of the shop and not in any open auction and that a licensee under, rule 24 of the Rules is required to sell the goods by public auction and this fact also proves that the respondent is a retailer after 1-4-1983 and, therefore, he is not required to get the licence renewed after 31-3-1983. We find force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, because Jagjit Singh Walia PW-1 and Darshan Singh PW-2 have admitted that the respondent never sold his goods in public auction. When the respondent never used any area of the Market Committee for the sale of his goods in a public auction, he sells his goods within the shop, and his turnover is not proved to be beyond Rs. 60,000/- per year, therefore, the respondent is a petty shopkeeper.
9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that once a dealer gets a licence under the Act, then he is bound to get it renewed. To meet this argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the word used in Section 10 of the Act is 'may' and not 'shall' and there is no section in the Act; or rule or bye-law framed under the Act, which enjoins a duty upon a dealer to get the licence renewed even when his turnover is less than Rs. 60,000/- per annum. We agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, because there is no section, rule or bye-law to the effect that a person, who once gets a licence, is duty-bound to get it renewed when his annual return is less than Rs. 60,000/-.
10. In view of the above-mentioned discussion, we find no merit in these appeals and, therefore, the same are dismissed.