In a criminal revision, the court reduced the simple imprisonment sentence already undergone by the appellant accused, maintaining the fine, based on his one-week detention.
Sentence of simple imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone; fine maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.832 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 29.4.2004 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur in Crl.A.No.363 of 2001, wherein and whereby the judgment, dated 4.7.2001 passed in S.T.C.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7(1), 23, 25(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, was confirmed.
The succinct facts of the prosecution case are that the 2nd respondent-complainant-Market Committee is a statutory body came into constitute as per the provisions of the State Act No.16/1966. The complainant-Market committee is entitled to regulate the business in the notified commodity within the notified area and that the traders have to obtain the licence to do business within the market committee area. In case, the traders do not obtain licence under Section 7(1) of the Act, they rendered themselves liable for prosecution. The accused is doing business in Ginger and Garlic notified under agricultural commodity and therefore, he has to obtain licence from the complainant-Market committee under the Act. But, inspite of notice issued by the complainant-market committee under section 7(1) of the Act on 28.7.1998 demanding to obtain the licence, the petitioneraccused did not respond. On 26.8.1998, the complainant issued a notice under sections 7 and 23 (1) of the Act demanding the accused to show cause as to why he shall not be prosecuted for not obtaining licence for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Inspite of it, the accused did not respond. As per Rule 46 of the Act, a special resolution was passed on 21.10.1998 to launch prosecution against
the accused. Hence the complaint.
The trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence found the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence under Section 7(1) 23, 25(2) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred Crl.A.No.363 of 2001 before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 29.4.2004. The same is questioned in this revision.
On 5.5.2004 while admitting the revision, this Court granted bail to the petitioner-accused.
Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of one week.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of one week. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken.
Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 7(1) 23, 25(2) of the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, imposed on the petitioneraccused by both the Courts below is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
24th February 2011 Nn
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.832 of 2004
24.2.2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant relief to the petitioner given his brief period of detention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONERACCUSED
MARKET COMMITTEE
GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
