Dismissed

Mohammed Ashraf v. the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2019WA/407/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this writ appeal challenging the rejection of a petition to quash Section 138 complaints. The appellant argued that Section 84(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act barred court proceedings. The Court held that Section 84(4) applies only to civil disputes and does not bar penal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeal was d

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The pending interlocutory application was disposed of without affecting pending proceedings under Section 84.

Mohammed Ashraf Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO. 407/2019 (APMC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED ASHRAF AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O P ISMAIL M/S H.K. AGRI PRODUCTS

¶9

13A/2A1

¶10

NADA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI S.A. AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND :

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING NO 16, 2^ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560001

¶15

THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

¶16

MANGALA CASHEW INDUSTRIES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PADAVINANGADY MANGALORE

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER

¶18

¶19

D. VEDAVYAS KAMATH S/O VAMANA KAMATH, 43 YEARS

¶20

M/S. KALADHAR CASHEW INDUSTRIES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KUMTA TALUK, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12-12-2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.37489/2017 (APMC) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶26

The appellant is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in a petition filed for quashing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the said Act of 1881’). The writ petition has been rejected by the order impugned in this appeal.

¶27

The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶28

appellant is based on Section 84 of the Karnataka Agricultural

¶29

¶30

Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short ‘the said Act of 1966’). It is submitted that in view of subsection (4) of Section 84 of the said Act of 1966 which starts with non-obstante clause, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be entertained by any Court in respect of the disputes referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 84 without the previous sanction of the Market Committee. His submission is that the liability of the appellant, who is named as an accused in the pending complaint, can be determined only after settlement of the dispute in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the said Act of 1966. He would, therefore, submit that unless there is a settlement of the dispute in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 84, it cannot be said that the cheque was issued by the appellant for discharge of a debt or other liability.

¶31

We have considered the submissions. Section 84 of

¶32

the said Act of 1966 reads thus:

¶33

“84. Provision for settlement of disputes.- (1) For the purpose of settling disputes between producers, buyers and sellers, or their agents, including any disputes regarding the quality or weight of, or payment for, any agricultural produce, or any matter in relation to the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in the [market yard, market sub-yard or submarket yard, as the case may be), the market committee of that area shall appoint a panel of

¶34

¶35

arbitrators periodically consisting of agriculturalists, traders and commission agents, and constitute a Disputes Committee from among its members in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶36

(2) Rules shall be made regulating the procedure for settlement of disputes, the authority or authorities for settling the disputes and appeals from the decisions of such authorities, payment of fees by parties for settlement of disputes, by an arbitrator or arbitrators and all other matters connected with such settlement including the extent to which the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall be applicable to arbitrations under this section.

¶37

(3) Subject to the rules made under subsection (2), a market committee may make byelaws regulating the details in respect of settlement of disputes relating to transactions in notified agricultural produce in the market area.

¶38

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be entertained by any Court in respect of disputes referred to in sub-section (1), without the previous sanction of the market committee.”

¶39

5 . Sub-section (1) of Section 84 provides for settlement

¶40

of disputes between the producers, buyers and sellers, including the dispute regarding payment for any agricultural produce. The adjudication of the disputes is to be made by appointing Arbitrators and by constituting a Disputes Committee. The bar created by sub-section (4) is in respect of the disputes which are covered by sub-section (1) of Section 84. Section 138 is

¶41

¶42

incorporated in Chapter XVII of the said Act of 1881 by Act No.66 of 1988 which is a Central Act. Dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds is made an offence under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881. By no stretch of imagination, sub-section (4) of Section 84 will have application to a penal provision like Section 138. A complaint filed under Section 138 of the said Act of 1881 is not for recovery of amount. Moreover, the provision of Section 138 forming part of a Central legislation has come on the statute book subsequently. In that behalf, reliance was also placed by the learned State Public Prosecutor on a decision of this Court in the case of M/S. S.B.NAGARAJ AND CO. vs M/S. SRI GANESH OIL MILL¹ . Thus, the argument based on sub-section (4) of Section 84 has absolutely no merit.

¶43

Moreover, in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has recorded the undisputed position that the appellant purchased cashew nuts from the complainant and issued cheques towards the value of goods and that the cheques have been dishonoured.

¶44

Hence, we find no error in the view taken by the

¶45

learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶46

1 ILR 1999 KAR 4020

¶47

¶48

We may make it clear that we have considered the

¶49

merits of the appeal without going into the question whether the prayer for quashing the complaints was under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶50

We may also clarify that the order of the learned Single Judge and this order will not affect the proceedings, if any, pending or initiated under sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the said Act of 1966.

¶51

The pending interlocutory application does not survive and

¶52

is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Mohammed Ashraf v. the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ashraf v. the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Kavita Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Eashwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhan Mohan S Vs Government of Karnataka

Mr Padmanabh Shankar Vs Union of India

R Satish Vs the Senior Geologist

Smt. Dhanalakshmi Raju Vs the Commissioner