THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5195 of 2009 Dated:- 01st December, 2011 Between Bhuvaneswari Modern Rice Mill and another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5195 of 2009 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.419 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. 2. The second respondent/de facto complainant is the Agriculture Market Committee, Kakinada, represented by its Selection Grade Secretary (‘the Market Committee’, for brevity). He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 I.P.C. read with clause 3 of Section 10 of the Act. This Market Committee is a statutory body corporate constituted under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (‘the Act’, for brevity). The second petitioner herein – Kakarla Trinadha Sai Kumar is the proprietor of the first petitioner firm – Bhuvaneswari Modern Rice Mill, Aratlakatta Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, which is within the notified area of the Market Committee. The said rice mill is doing business in purchasing, processing, storage, weighing and selling of paddy and rice, i.e., notified commodities. The petitioners obtained licence to do the said business from the Market Committee/de facto complainant for the year 2003-04 to 2007-08. 3. Alleging that the petitioners filed monthly returns pertaining to their business before the Market Committee for the period 01.06.2003 to 31.01.2004 but failed to pay the market fee as per Rule 74(4)(a) of the Act and Licence condition No.3 of the rules framed under the Act and that the petitioners also failed to comply with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act which attracts penal provisions under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Market Committee/de facto complainant lodged the complaint. It is also the case of the de facto complainant that before lodging the complaint, it has issued a registered notice on 23.08.2005 demanding the petitioners to pay the market fee of Rs.41,965/- for the period from 01.06.2003 to 31.01.2004 and that the second petitioner, in spite of receiving the said notice, did not pay the market fee and that thereafter, it has issued a show-cause notice on 08.09.2005 granting 7 days time for payment of the market fee due by the petitioners, but the petitioner failed to give any written explanation. The Market Committee/de facto complainant also passed a resolution in a special meeting held on 08.12.2005 authorising the Selection Grade Secretary to launch prosecution against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the Act. 4. The only contention of Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were selling paddy to Food Corporation of India and that it is for the Food Corporation of India to pay the market fee to the Market Committee/de facto complainant. It is also his submission that in the similar circumstances, this Court has quashed the proceedings in other criminal petitions. 5. On the other hand, Smt. K.Lalitha, learned Standing Counsel for Agriculture Market Committee representing the second respondent/de facto complainant submitted that the petitioners ought to have availed the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 12(e) of the Act and if their claim is negatived in the appeal, they have the remedy to file a revision before the Commissioner and that without availing those opportunities, the petitioners have straight away approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is also her submission that though initially some proceedings were quashed by this Court in similar circumstances, but subsequently, when they carried the matter to the Apex Court, the Apex Court, while setting aside the order of quash passed by this Court, had categorically held that in similar circumstances, prosecution can be launched, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Be that as it is, the disputed fact whether the petitioners have collected any fee from the Food Corporation of India or from any other purchasers or not and whether they failed to pay the market fee payable to the Market Committee cannot be decided in these proceedings. It is settled law that where in a case, on a plain reading of the complaint or the charge-sheet, though the allegations made therein are accepted as true, do not make out a case or does not reveal any offences, then only this Court may exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. 7. In view of the same, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 01st December, 2011 Bvv