Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Anjan Goswami, Senior Manager of M/s Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Private Limited, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of a complaint in C.C. No. 469/11 pending before the I Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Kolar. The complaint was lodged by the respondent, the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kolara, alleging violation of Sections 8, 65, and 66 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (the Act), punishable under Sections 144, 117, and 117(A) of the Act. The allegation was that the petitioner, as Senior Manager, purchased notified agricultural produces like Broken Rice and Maize in bulk quantities from various market areas such as Davangere, Harapanahalli, Kottur, Baramasagara, and Ranebennur without obtaining a license or permit, thereby falling within the definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the purchases were for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed for the company's hatcheries, not for resale, and thus he was not a 'Trader' under the Act. The court examined the definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48), which defines a trader as a person who buys or sells notified agricultural produce as a business. The court reasoned that the petitioner's purchase of notified produce for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, which is then sold, does not constitute 'business of purchase and sale' of the notified produce itself. The purchase is for own consumption in the manufacturing process, not for trading. Therefore, the petitioner does not require a license under the Act. The court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the complaint in C.C. No. 469/11 was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - Complaint alleging violation of Sections 8, 65, 66 of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - Petitioner purchased notified produce for manufacturing chicken feed, not for resale - Held that petitioner is not a 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Act as purchase is for own consumption in manufacturing process, not for sale - Complaint quashed (Paras 2-7).
B) Agricultural Marketing - Definition of 'Trader' - Section 2(48) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 - 'Trader' defined as person buying or selling notified produce as a business - Petitioner's purchase of raw material for manufacturing chicken feed does not constitute 'business of purchase and sale' - Held that the activity is not covered under the definition, hence no license required (Paras 4-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who purchases notified agricultural produce in bulk for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, falls within the definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, and is thereby required to obtain a license under the Act.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The complaint in C.C. No. 469/11 on the file of the I Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Kolar is quashed.
Law Points
- Definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act
- 1966
- Purchase of notified produce for own consumption in manufacturing
- Requirement of license under Sections 8
- 65
- 66 of the Act
- Quashing of criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (10) 18
Criminal Petition No. 163/2014
Sri Giridhar.H for petitioner, Sri T.Swaroop for respondent
The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kolara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint alleging violation of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the complaint in C.C. No. 469/11 pending before the I Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Kolar.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the complaint lodged by the respondent-Market Committee alleging that he purchased notified agricultural produces in bulk without a license, thereby violating Sections 8, 65, and 66 of the Act.
Issues
Whether the petitioner, who purchases notified agricultural produce in bulk for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, falls within the definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.
Whether the petitioner is required to obtain a license under the Act for such purchases.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the purchase of notified produce was for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, not for resale, and thus he is not a 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Act.
Respondent contended that the petitioner purchases notified produce in bulk quantities and therefore falls within the definition of 'Trader' and requires a license.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, requires that the person buys or sells notified agricultural produce as a business. Purchase of notified produce for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, which is then sold, does not constitute 'business of purchase and sale' of the notified produce itself. Therefore, such a purchaser is not a 'Trader' under the Act and is not required to obtain a license. Continuing criminal proceedings against such a person would be an abuse of process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Senior Manager of M/s.Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Private Limited and in the conduct of its business, it purchases notified produces like Broken Rice, Maize etc., for the use and consumption in the hatcheries, that is, to manufacture chicken feed to feed the chicken, which in turn is subsequently sold to its customers.
The definition of 'Trader' under Section 2(48) of the Act defines a trader as a person who buys or sells notified agricultural produce as a business. The petitioner's purchase of notified produce is for use as raw material in manufacturing chicken feed, not for resale. Therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'Trader' and is not required to obtain a license.
Procedural History
The respondent-Market Committee filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the I Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Kolar, alleging violation of Sections 8, 65, and 66 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 163/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the complaint. The High Court heard the matter and passed the order on 10th October 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 482
- Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966: Sections 2(48), 8, 65, 66, 144, 117, 117(A)
