The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs M/s Cashew Trading Co. and others

Hiremath, J.—This appeal could be disposed of on a short point. The Secretary - the complainant, Agricultural Produce Market Committee filed complaint against the respondents for various offences under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act of 1966. He admitted in his evidence that the Committee passes resolution and such resolutions passed are implemented by him though he is the Secretary of the Committee. Section 56, Clause (xi) dealing with powers, functions and duties of the Secretary states that he has power to prefer complaints in respect of prosecutions to be launched on behalf of the Market Committee and conduct proceedings civil or criminal on behalf of the Market Committee. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such resolution was passed by the Market Committee either empowering or directing the Secretary to launch prosecution against the accused persons. The said provision makes it amply clear that whatever he does in civil or criminal matters, it is on behalf of the Market Committee. Therefore ultimately it is the Market Committee which must take a decision whether to launch prosecution or not and if it decides in that behalf and empowers the Secretary then only he can file complaint against any person. The trial court found that no such resolution was passed by the Market Committee and, therefore, the Secretary by himself could not have filed complaint against the accused persons. Section 63(b)(ii) also specifies that Market Committee may prosecute persons violating the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and compound such offences. Therefore, if these two provisions are read together, it follows that it is the Committee which must take a decision to prosecute persons for any violations alleged and in the absence of such decision by the Market Committee, the Secretary could not have filed the complaint. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.