HI6H CWKT OF CHHATTtSfiARH ^T BILASPUR Sirgle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritjnker Dwyaker CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 917 of 1990 APPELL4MTT Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Saraipafi, District Raipur through Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mani Samit, Saraipali Versus RESPON&ENT l-1iralal son of Dhansai Patel Mr, yashwant Singh Thd<ur-, counset for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for the respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 (4) OF THE COOE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. O R & 6R (22.01.2010) Present appeal is directed ogainst' the impugned judgment dated 16.02.1990 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasomund in Crimina! Revision No. 104/1989 whereby allowing the revision as filed by the responderst and acquitted him for the offences under Section 19 read with Section 49, under Section 20 read with Section 49, under Section 31 read with Ssction 48, under Section 36 read with Section 49 and under Section 37 read with Section 49 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj AAandi Adhiniyam, 1972. 2. Brief facts of the ease are that on 18.12.1986 a Mfflidi Inspector had raided one house of Rojkumor' Patel and found 4(X) bags of 'Mahua' flower in the same, thereafter a comptaint case was fited by the appel!ant against one Rajkumoir Patel and Dhanshya Patel on 26.12.1986 cnd vide judgmmt dated 16.12.1987 both the accused persons were ocquitted. While ^ 1 Vj^'j 1b^.; 'ii.,..^ acquitt'ing the occused persons cct'egorical findin9 was given by the Court below that the seized 'Mahua' was of infact respondent Heerdal and wos not of Raj Kumcr Potel or Dhanshay Patet. 3. In view of the above judgmwrt ond finding of the Court, a fresh compldnt was fi!ed by the appetlant before th© Competent Court' on 17.2.1988 and in the «iid case; an application was filed on behalf of th®respondent ander Section 468 of the Code of Cr'iminal Procedure. The said applicotion was dismissed by the triat Court vide order 4.2.1989 and the said order was assaited by the apjwllaBt before the Revisionat Court- and vide impugned judgmenf md order, revision preferred by the respondent hcssbeen allpwed and the respondent has been discharged. 4. Counsel for the appellcmt submits that prder impygned i^ not in accordance with law because the complaint was filed within six months of the date of offence or d' tsast withinsix months from the dort-e of knowledge. He further SBbmitsthot if the respondent isconvicted, the appeilant wrt! get' hyge amount as Mandi Tax. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respandent sybmits that 'AAahurf is alleged to have beenseized on 18.12.1986 whereas complaint wos fi!ed on 17.2.198B and; therefore, admittedly the same has been filed after six months cmd, therefore, the complaint itself was not tenQble, He fyrl'her submits thot the respondent is alicenoe hotderof doing the business of sale & purchase of Wahuof cmd this Itcencse was^ aranted in his favour on 15.7.1986 ond therefor®,onee it w^ o+ siq&inoADj. MSJA auo 6utip4. +0003 |DIJ+ aij4. puo uoi+nsssojd ai|+ Aq p8| iaouapjAa si|4. y> sisoq ®i|4.uio ajqissod ajo smaiA OM4. J.I |DU!"b9D 4.SUJD6D 3SD3 D Ul ^UljJ. UOI+ISod |D6s| 5uj+SIX3 3^+ j.O srio(3suo3 i|3nu< Aj3A 6uiaq ptu? pjooaj uo 3|cp|ioAD aouspiAs ai|4. i|6nojL|4. 6uio6 puo sai^od 3i|4. uoj. |ssuno3 6utjoai| ^a+J.v '6 •|CIJ4. SM+ 3:>D^ °+ +U3pUOdS3J 81)4.6ui>|ao PUD :suD3A ^g j.o ^do| 344. JS+J.D asoo ai|+ Euiuodosj ui paAjas sq p[noM ssodvind jnj.asn ou puo pasdD|3 ApoaJ|D sAioij sjbaA ^g 'usAoajow 'II+IM psjs^js+ui aq 4.ouLiD3 auros aij4. '8>id^sj3t|4. 'puo SUOSDSJ yjBSos sij+ uo pssoq si Suipuij. pios sqi •4.U8pUO(iS3>l 3144. 6ui.Uinb3D ^jnO^ ]DUOISIA3J 81^4. Aq uaAi6 U33q sbq Buipuij. poijoBa+Do 'S+ODJ. 31^4. ||D Buii^apisuoo js+^y •9 '986l'2I'8l uoj^ sq+uoui xis UltltiM 4.U!D|dU103 31)4. p3|l^ OAOt^ p|n03 4.UD[|3ddD 'ajOJ.3J3l|4. 'pUD 4.u8pu6dsaj si(.|. ^o si pnijDW, pszias p86ai|D 91(4.1044.986rzT'8T 140 '.p'tolpdd0 ®M4. ^o sSpsjMoift) ai|4. UIII+IM J9i|+jn^ SDM ^ •,001)0^,4°sssulsncl 3vt^ u! P3A|OAUI S! +U8pUOds3J 4JOIJ4. 3JDMD [(3A» ajsM S3j+ijolj+ra> 3t|4. puo 9861'Z'SI uo +uapuoclsaj 31)4. ^o javwa^. w s3U3:>j| ps+uojS SDI| 4JUi»||addD 31)4. 'A|pS44|uipy •^ 'pJOOaj UO 8|qD|IDAO |DIJ3^0U a><^ pssruad puo ssi+jod ai|4. >ioj. jssunoo pj03i| aADi) i •9 •sjoaA ^2 ^o 3sdD| aij.1. J»^fbSSDO aij+ 6uiu3do9d ui pSAjas aq p|nom ssodjnd jnpsn ou pub -/QQS'sg ^o su'j- si uii) 4Suii€D p3||3Aa| ajo i|3ii1«suoipas st|+ japun pspiAojd ussq soij ^OIIIM 4.U3iuqsiund .tuntuiXDU* 4JOi|4. s+iuiqns OS|D ®H '986T'2t'8l lu(u^ sij+uoui xjs yi44.tM p3|jj. ussq SADI^ p|noi|s +ujD|duio3 31)4.4uapuodsa>4 aij^. o+ s6uo|3q ,Dni|ow, 4Dt|4.4.UD||addo ai|4. ^o 36p8|Mous( ai|4. uii)+tivi M vw & ^. ^. the occused, reversion of the findings of acquitta! by the appellate Court toking the otJier possible view into consideration, is not permissible in lcw, this Courl' is of the view that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent of the offencespunishable under Section 19 read with Section 49, under Section 20 reaid with Section 49, under Section 31 recri with Section 48, under Section 36 read with Sect'ion 49 and under Section 37 read with Section 49 of the Chhoittisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyarn. is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above factuat and tegal position, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. 11. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sdl-,. ?t^n^ ^lva^et t>/- 5ttASe