IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS TI-IE 7” DAY OF JUNE 2011 B E FE) R F THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETITION NO/Qj0 BETWEEN: Ragavencira S/o. Govindappa Hebsur, The Proprietor, Tirumaleshwar Trading Company, Merchants and Commission Agents, Navalgund. Pl I lION ER By Sri.S.V.Shivalli, ADV.,) AND: The Additional Director, Enforcement cell, Dept. of Agricultural Marketing No. 16, 2rd Rajabbavan Road, Bangalore, For and on behalf of State of Karnataka. RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.B.Advapak, AGA.,) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.273/2009 on the file of JMFC, Navalgund, as being arbitrary, erroneous and con trarv to law. This petition coming Ofl for admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing the entire proceeding inCC.No.273/2009 on the file of J.M.F.C., Navalgund. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: The petitioner herein is a merchant and commission agent carrying on business under a licence from APMC Annieri. He is engaged in business of notified agricultural produce scheduled in the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regularation and Development) Act 1966. Whereas the respondent is the State Government employee working as Additional Director. Enforcement Cell. in the Department of Agricultural Marketing. Bangalore. 3. The respondent confirmed on the in fo r ma t i 0 n r ccci v ed regard i n g t h e ace u se ci dealing in the notified produce, got issued notic 3 to the accused on 27.02.2008 through the Secretary APMC, Annigeri, demanding the Books of Accounts for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, Stock Register, Ledger, Purchase Bills, Sale Receipts, Permit Books, Copies of Form 235A and to appear before him in his office on 17.01.2008 at 11.00 a.m. for verification of payment of market fee, failing which action would be taken against the petitioner in the Court under Section 1 17(a) of the APMC Act. 4. The petitioner did not appear before the complainant on 17.03.2008 and again a notice was issued to the accused on 28.03.2008 directing him to appear before the complainant on 21.04.2008 at 11.00 a.m. Despite the second notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the complainant on 21.04.2008 and produced the relevant document and the, required information. Finally notice was issued to him asking to appear before the complainant in the office on 4 07.05.2008 at II a.m. Despite the service of notice, the petitioner is said to have not produced the documents. In these circumstances, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate to take action against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 114 and 117 A of the APMC Act. It is the said proceedings which has been challenged by the petitioner before this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that he has produced all the records which were required by the complainant, in pursuance of the show cause notice issued. He has shown some letters referring to the production of document before the Deputy Director. The petitioner has not produced any matcrial to show that all those documents enumerated in para No.3 of the complaint have been produced. So, also he has not present before the complainant as per th notice issued. In these circumstances, a complaint came to be filed for contravention of Sections 114 and 117A of the APMC Act. If the petitioner has any justification or clarification for non-compliance with the notice issued by the complainant, it is for him to appear before the Magistrate for explaining the reasons put forth in his defence. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint is hit under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., it is relevant to note that the last notice issued to the accused to appear before the complainant was on 07.05.2008 at 11.00 a.m. and the complaint came to be lodged on 26.12.2009. The offence under Section 114 of A.P.M.C. Act is punishable with fine and so also Section 1 17A. So a complaint has to be filed within six months from the date of commission of the offence. There appears to be delay in lodging the complaint. The Magistrate has to consider this aspect of the matter by a 6 giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file his objection for the delay that has been occurred. So, without condoning the delay the cognizance cannot be taken. 7. In the circumstance, so far as order of taking cognizancc is conccrned it has to be quashed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate to obtain an order on the question of delay and thereafter, to proceed in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Misc.Crl.15673/2010 for stay does not survive for consideration. Hence it is rejected. Sd! JUDGE Rms/