Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.9 of 1998 **** Against the judgment, dated 25.01.1992, passed by Sri Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No. 359 (C) of 1984 **** Sachiv Krishi Utpadan Samittee, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, district Patna .. Appellant Versus 1. M/S Yadu Sao, Pethia, Danapur, P.S. Danapur, district Patna 2. The State of Bihar .. Respondents **** For the Appellant .. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi Adv. as Amicus Curiae For the State .. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, by which he has acquitted accused-respondents for offence under Section 48 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act for violation of Rule 98 and 82 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Rule, 1975, as well as Sections 27 and 27A of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act that it has been alleged that the appellant has not paid the market fee with regard to the sale and produce etc. 2 3. The trial Court acquitted the appellant that the prosecution could not able to prove the charges in view of three witnesses, adduced on behalf of the prosecution case. 4. I perused the records and the finding recorded by the trial Court. The occurrence is of the year 1984 and the conviction is under Section 48 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act for not having renewed his licence under Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Manual. The three witnesses, adduced, do not mention about purchase or sale of agricultural produce, there is no evidence about allegation made. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 5. This appeal is dismissed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 29th day of September, 2011, N.A.F.R., S.A.