HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5773 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 ( in short ‘the Act’) for violation of Section 12/23(1) of the Act and Rule 74 and Bye Law 24 in STC No. 6 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada. 2. The respondent/Agricultural Market committee, Pamarru, Krishna District filed the complaint in the lower Court alleging that the accused carried on business without paying licence fee and market fee and that the Market Committee issued notices to the accused for obtaining licence and payment of market fee and that the accused opted to pay licence fee and did not remit market fee and that therefore, the complainant demanded market fee of Rs.1,06,858/- and penalty of Rs.2,13,716/- under Section 12(B) of the Act. 3. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Youdhister V. Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Jogipet, Medak Dist.,[1] of this Court wherein it was held : “Section 12(1) was penalized as an offence under Section 23 of the Act. After introduction of Sections 12(A), 12(B) and 12(C) of the Act there is no corresponding amendment of the Sec. 23 of the Act extending penalization for the violation of Sections 12(A), 12(B) and 12(C) as an offence. Therefore, once the violation of Sections 12(A) 12 (B) and 12(C) is not made penal there cannot be any prosecution for their violation. As per Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. Though there is violation of the provisions covered by Sections 12(A), 12(B) and 12(C) still since there is no corresponding penal provision for such violations by means of an amendment or insertion of a penal provision in the Market Act, the accused cannot be prosecuted before the criminal Court for such violations.” 4. On the other hand, the respondents counsel contended that in another matter the Supreme Court of India granted Stay of operation of the order passed by this Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (crl) Nos. 5064-5065 of 2010 on 06.11.2010. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Supreme Court is yet to grant Special Leave in that matter and that as the matter now stands in Youdhister of this court (supra) holds the field. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the complaint filed by the Market Committee in the lower Court is not maintainable in law. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings in STC No. 6 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudivada. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 19-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 1990 (3) ALT 31