SECRETARY, MARKET COMMITTEE, MEHAR, DISTRICT, DADU Versus NARUMAL

1. MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J: ‑‑ This is an acquittal appeal which has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. Secretary, Market Committee, Mehar submitted challan against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under subsection (1) of section 6 and subsection (2) of section 4, of Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be mentioned as the Act).

3. The Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Mehar in whose Court, challan was submitted took cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 but during pendency of the case he acquitted the respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. on 18‑7‑1988. Hence this acquittal appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Latif Malik learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul latif Ansari, AA.‑G. for the State.

5. The impugned order of acquittal is based on the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 29 of the Act which reads as under:‑‑

6. "Prosecution under this Act may be instituted by a person duly authorised by a resolution of the Market Committee."

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the resolution of the Market Committee was filed with the challan but no opportunity was given by the trial Court to bring in evidence the same. On examining the record of the trial Court, we find that there is no copy of any resolution having been passed by Market Committee Mehar, in the file. The original challan submitted in the trial Court mentions enclosures of the challan to be a notice dated 3‑6‑1985 and resolution copy. The words `and resolution copy' are written with a different ink and in a different hand and these words appear to have been incorporated at a later stage. The challan is accompanied by copy of notice of demand dated 3‑6‑1985 but is not accompanied by any resolution said to have been passed by the Market Committee.

8. Mr. Abdul Lateef Ansari learned AA.‑G. supported the impugned order and argued that prosecution of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in absence of the resolution of the Market Committee Mehar was bad in view of the provisions contained in section 29(2) of the Act. Learned A.A: G. was of the view that copy of this resolution should have been filed with the challan if at all such resolution was passed.

9. Agreeing with learned A.A.‑G. we maintain the impugned order and k dismiss this appeal.

10. N.H.Q./S‑918/K Appeal dismissed.