STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOOL CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 14-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN 
v. 
MOOL CHAND AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 14, 2004 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,J.T.] 
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961; Sections 17 and 281 
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1983: Evasion of payment of 
market duty on agricultural produce by a licensed commission Agent-
C Complaint against-Trial Court found Licensee guilty, sentenced him to 
simple imprisonment for three months and directed him to deposit the evaded 
amount of duty-Affirmed by Appellate Court reducing the sentence-
Conviction set aside by High Court directing refund of the duty deposited 
relying on a decision relating to the UP. Act-On appeal, Held: Provisions 
D of the UP. Act not applicable as they operate in different field and cannot 
be pressed into service to the case covered under the provisions of the 
Rajasthan (I.ct-High Court failed to notice the difference in the language of 
the two Acts-Nor did it give any reason for applying the decision in UP. 
case to Rajasthan matters-Hence, matter remitted to High Court for 
E consideration afresh-UP. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964-Section 
17. 
On inspection of records of one of the respondents-licensed traders and 
commission agents in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur, it was found 
by the authorities concerned that the respondent was not using declaration 
F 
form as prescribed under the Rajasthan Agricultural Market Rules and 
noticed evasion of certain amount of duty by him. A complaint was filed by the 
authorities before the appropriate Court for recovery of the duty. Trial Court 
found the respondents guilty of the alleged offence of evasion of market fee/ 
duty and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for three months and ordered 
to deposit the evaded amount of duty. Reducing the sentence, Appellate Court 
G affirmed the order. On second appeal, High Court set aside the conviction 
and directed the authorities to refund the recovered amount of duty holding 
that liability tu pay market fee was on the purchaser and noton the licensee. 
Hence the prestmt appeal and the connected appeal. 
H 
498 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOOL CHAND 
499 
It was contended for the appellant-State that the liability of the traders A 
and the agents is clearly stipulated in the Rajasthan Act; that the provisions 
under the U.P. Act are different and as such not applicable to the facts and 
circumstances of the present case which was covered under the provisions of 
the Rajasthan Act 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HLED: 1.1. There is a basic distinction between the Rajasthan 
Agricultural Produce Market Act and the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi 
Adhiniyam so far as the levy of market fee is concerned. In the U.P. Act there 
B 
is a specific reference of fixing the liability on the purchaser and in the C 
Rajasthan Act liability is on the licensee. (503-F] 
1.2. The High Court did not notice the contextual difference between 
Section 17 of the Rajasthan Act vis-a-vis Section 17 of the U.P. Act. The logic 
applied in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani and Ors. cannot 
be pressed into service so far as the Rajasthan cases are concerned, because D 
the legal position is different. However, the High Court has not given any 
reason as to why it thought that the UP. case was applicable to the present 
appeals without even comparing the various provisions. On the sole ground 
that High Court failed to notice the difference in the language of the U.P. Act 
and the Rajasthan Act, the matters require to be remitted to !he High Court 
Hence, the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. E 
It is clarified that no opinion is expressed on the merit of the case. (504-C-E] 
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani and Ors. v. Indian Wood 
Products Ltd and Anr., (1996) 3 SCC 321, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 667 f 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.98 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in S.B.Crl. R.P. No. 387of1995. 
Ms. Madhurima Tatia and Indra Makwana for the Appellant. 
G 
Manish Singhvi, Saurabh Ajay, P.V. Yogeswaran, R.K. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, 
Sushi! Kr. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, L.P. Singh, Puneet 
Jain and Mrs. Pratibha Jain for the Respondents. 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. These two appeals involve identical issues and 
therefore are taken up for disposal toge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.