:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF JUNE, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

CRL.R.P. 100182/2015
BETWEEN:

THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE

MARKETING COMMITTEE, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT-583 121 BY ITS
SECRETARY, AGED: 58 YEARS.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI K. CHANDRAMOULI REDDY,

S/O K. VIRUPAKSHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, M/S T.V.S. TRADERS,
NO. 10/1883, 14 T H WARD,
SADASHIVANAGAR, SIRUGUPPA,
BELLARY DISTRICT, PIN-583 121.
- RESPONDENT
(SRI J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION & JMFC), SIRUGUPPA,
IN CRL. MISC. NO. 15/2009 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 116 OF KAPMC ACT, 1966, DATED
01.01.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
 :2:

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING

ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING: -

ORDER

1. Complainant in the Court below filed this revision

petition aggrieved by the closure of the complaint by

the learned Magistrate.

2. A Petition was filed u/S 116 of the Karnataka

Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966

against the respondent to order for recovery

Rs.1,73,152/- being the amount payable along with

penalty and for crediting the same to the petitioner.

The respondent after appearing before the learned

Magistrate has made some deposit.

3. On 01.01.2015, advocate for the petitioner

having paid Rs.33,290/- as one time fine and

submitted that the accused is poor and unable to

deposit the penalty amount of three times the fine

amount, permitting the respondent to deposit

 :3:

Rs.33,290/- remaining balance amount towards due

amount of one time fine, the petition was closed.

4. Heard learned advocates of both sides and

perused the record.

5. Undeniably, learned magistrate has not heard

either of the parties on the date the petition was

closed. A perusal of the entire order sheet of the case

and the impugned order shows that there is no

application of mind and the learned magistrate has

mechanically closed the petition. Had the learned

magistrate heard the learned advocates appearing for

the parties and considered the matter, impugned

order would not have been passed. There is flaw in

the procedure adopted by the learned magistrate and

impugned order is illegal.

6. Learned magistrate has the obligation to pass a

reasoned order. The impugned order does not show

 :4:

that any reason for closure of the complaint/ petition

and hence interference is called for.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the

impugned order is set aside. The case having not

been decided by the learned magistrate in accordance

with law, is remanded for consideration and decision

after issue of notices to both parties.

Needless to observe that contentions of both

parties in the matter is left open for consideration by

the learned magistrate.

Sd/-
JUDGE
bvv