1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.293 OF 1999 Rahuri Krushi Utpanna Market Committee, Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar, through its Appellant/ori. Secretary. complainant versus 1. Prakash Bansilal Parakh age major, occup.business, r/o Rahur, Dist.Ahmednagar. 2. State of Maharashtra. Respondents/ No.1 ori.accus. ----------- Shri S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri K.B. Jadhav, Advocate holding for Shri R.S.Bihani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt.B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. ----------- Coram : P.R.Borkar, J. Date : December 19, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. 01. This is an appeal preferred by Rahuri Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee "Rahuri A.P.M.C." for short), being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed on 27.6.1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahuri, in S.C.C. No. 494 of 1990, of the offences punishable under Section 6(1) read with Section 46 of the 2 Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act"). 02. Heard Shri S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant, Shri K.B.Jadhav, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Smt.B.R.Khekale, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.2. 03. The appellant had filed private complaint against Respondent No. 1 in the court of learned J.M.F.C. Rahuri on 1.8.1990, alleging that Respondent No.1 was trading in agricultural produce without obtaining necessary licence from it and thus committed offence punishable under Section 6(1) read with Section 46 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the evidence of only witness examined on behalf of the appellant-complainant, namely, Baban Ghorpade was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused had taken defence that he was a retailer and though earlier he had licence, since he was no more doing trading 3 in agricultural produce, he had not obtained the licence as required under the Act. Baban Ghorpade, in his evidence has stated that the jurisdiction of Rahuri A.P.M.C. is over the entire Taluka. Accused No.1 was running a grocery shop and for 7-8 years he was having licence, but from 1.10.1989 onwards he had not obtained licence and not paid fees and, therefore, he committed offence under Section 6(1) of the Act. 04. Respondent No.1-accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stated that he never purchased goods within jurisdiction of Rahuri A.P.M.C, but he purchased the goods elsewhere. He also stated that he is a retailer. He, however, admitted that previously he was holding licence and that he did not renew the same from 1.10.1989 onwards. According to the accused, for a retailer, licence is not required. 05. Witness Baban Ghorpade in his cross examination admitted that he could not tell 4 whether the accused had not been purchasing agricultural produce within the limits of Rahuri A.P.M.C. then, he specifically admitted that position. He further deposed that he was not aware from whom the accused was purchasing the agricultural goods. It is denied that the accused was running a retail grocery shop and, therefore, he did not require licence. Witness has thereafter stated that he was not aware whether the accused purchased goods from traders outside the jurisdiction of Rahuri A.P.M.C. and sold the same in his shop and that he did not require trader's licence. In this case, it does not appear that witness Baban Ghorpade had any personal knowledge regarding trading activities of respondent No.1-accused. 06. On behalf of accused, one Babasaheb Shende is examined as defence witness who deposed that the accused was running grocery shop at Rahuri and selling goods to the consumers for their personal use. 5 07. Section 6(2) of the said Act reads:- "6. Regulation of marketing of agricultural produce. (1)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to sales by retail; [sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce;] nor to sales to by a person where he himself sells to another who buys for his personal consumption or the consumption of any member of his family." Thus, it is clear that the licence under the said Act is not required for sales by a retailer. In the facts and circumstances, this is not a case wherein interference is required in the discretion used by the trial court. 08. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. pnd/criapl293.99 (P.R.Borkar, J.