Dismissed

M/s. Bharathi Marine Exports, v. The Agriculture Market Committee, Bhimavaram

Telangana HC24 Aug 2012CRLP/4949/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding violation of Section 12-B(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Markets Act, 1966. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Supreme Court observations in related appeals establish applicability of Section 23.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings was dismissed as devoid of merits.

M/s. Bharathi Marine Exports, Vs The Agriculture… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4949 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Bharathi Marine Exports & another

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

1. The Agricultural Market Committee, Bhimavaram, Rep. by its Supervisor-II, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District

¶11

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶15

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4949 of 2010

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶18

Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.37 of 2008 (for short, “S.T.C”), pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 12(1) and 7(5) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶19

2. The Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 (for short, ‘A-1 and A-2’) and the first respondent is the complainant in S.T.C.No.37 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the S.T.C.

¶20

3. The main grievance of A-1 and A–2 is that there is no penal provision in the Act for prosecuting them with regards to the violation of Section 12-B(5) of the Act and, hence, the question of prosecuting them in the case does not arise at all.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a common order rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.3535, 3536, 3537, 3549, 3551, 3552, 3553 and 3568 of 2010 in which prosecution of the accused concerned therein for violation of Sections 12a, 12b and 12c of the Act under Section 23 of the Act was quashed on the ground that the said provisions were subsequently included by amendment in the Act without making necessary provision for the application of Section 23 of the Act to those provisions.

¶22

5. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that against the common order passed in the said batch of cases, dated 21.04.2010, appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court of India (Vide Criminal Appeal Nos.1050-1052 of 2011,

¶23

1053-1054 of 2011 and 1055 of 2011) and while disposing of those appeals, the Apex Court observed that though the provisions in question were added by way of amendment, still the penal provisions enshrined in Section 23 of the Act would be applicable in respect of violation of those amended provisions also. The observations of the Apex Court are in consonance with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant. When it is observed by the Apex Court that the violation of Sections 12a, 12b and 12c of the Act would come within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act holding that the view taken by this Court while disposing of the batch of cases was incorrect, the same view is applicable in the present case similarly situated also. Consequently, the prosecution of A-1 and A-2 under Section 23 of the Act for the violation of Section 12-B (5) of the Act is not proper. In fact, there is no other grievance raised by the accused.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶25

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶26

Date: 24^th August, 2012

¶27

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4949 of 2010

¶30

Date: 24^th August, 2012

¶31

M/s. Bharathi Marine Exports, v. The Agriculture Market Committee, Bhimavaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Bharathi Marine Exports, v. The Agriculture Market Committee, Bhimavaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadelli Ugra Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Babumiya , Abdul Raheem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaikwar Sangeetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ravoori Venkata Swamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. N. Rama Krishna Raju Vs Dr. T. Srinivasulu

Mohd. Shafiullah, Vs The State of A.P.