- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100126 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100127 OF 2019 IN CRL.R.P. NO.100126 OF 2019 BETWEEN: M/S. RASHEEDA TRADERS, PROPRIETOR MOHAMMAD SULEMAN SAHEB, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HERUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR (N.K.). …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.M. NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE SIDDAPUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIVANATH ACHUTA MAHALE. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.103/2012 PASSED BY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K., KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2012 IN C.C.NO.206/2008 PASSED BY JMFC COURT, SIDDAPUR AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CRL.R.P. NO.100127 OF 2019 BETWEEN: M/S. RASHEEDA TRADERS, PROPRIETOR MOHAMMAD IRFAN S/O. SULEMAN SAHEB, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HERUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR (N.K.). …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.M. NAIKWADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, SIDDAPUR, TQ. SIDDAPUR, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIVANATH ACHUTA MAHALE. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.102/2012 PASSED BY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K., KARWAR, SITUATED AT SIRSI AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2012 IN C.C.NO.207/2008 PASSED FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 114, 117 AND 117-A OF APMC ACT, BY JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SIDDAPUR AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri M.M. Naikwadi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Vishwanath Hegde learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. Accused is before this Court challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in C.C. Nos.206/2008 and 207/2008 dated 28.05.2012 by the learned JMFC, Siddapur, and the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.102/2012 and 103/2012 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. 3. The succinct facts of the complainant’s case, as projected, are as under: The complainant–respondent No.1 is the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Siddapur. The complainant is the controlling authority regulating the business of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 agricultural produce marketing within the limits of the Siddapur market area. The accused-Revision Petitioner is stated to be carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Rasheeda Traders. 4. In Crl.R.P.No.100126/2019, it is the case of the complainant that information was received from the Additional Director of the Legal Enforcement Squad, Agriculture Department, Bengaluru, indicating that the accused was engaged in the trade of agricultural produce within the Siddapur market area without obtaining the requisite licence from the complainant. Based on the said information, the complainant issued notices dated 17.01.2007, 29.03.2007, and 10.05.2007, calling upon the accused to produce necessary statements of accounts. However, the accused failed to furnish the details and documents as sought. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the APMC Act’), the complainant sought relevant information - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 from the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sirsi, pertaining to the business transactions of the accused. After obtaining the said documents, the complainant ascertained that the accused had a turnover of ₹13,21,600/- during the financial year 2006–07, and was liable to pay market fees to the tune of ₹19,824/-. As the accused failed to pay the said charges, he became liable to pay a penalty of ₹59,479/-, making the total dues payable by him of ₹79,569/-, including fine and other levies. 5. Similarly, in Crl.R.P. No.100127/2019, based on information received from the Additional Director of the Legal Enforcement Squad, Agriculture Department, Bengaluru, indicating that the accused was engaged in the trade of agricultural produce within the Siddapur Market area without obtaining the requisite licence from the complainant, the complainant issued notices dated 01.12.2006 and 22.12.2006, calling upon the accused to produce the statement of accounts. When accused failed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 to furnish the requisite documents, the complainant obtained the relevant details from the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sirsi, pertaining to the business transactions of the accused, and ascertained that the accused had effected a turnover of ₹27,87,335/- during the financial year 2004–05 and ₹57,55,035/- during the financial year 2005–06. Accordingly, the accused was found liable to pay market charges of ₹41,810/- for the financial year 2004–05 and ₹86,325/- for the financial year 2005–06. In total, the accused was found liable to pay a sum of ₹3,45,900/-, inclusive of fine and other applicable charges. 6. Despite the issuance of a demand notice, the accused failed to remit the amount due for the aforesaid financial years. Consequently, the complainant, through its Secretary, instituted complaints under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 115, 116, 117, and 117-A of the Act, in C.C. No.207/2008 pertaining to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 the financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06, and in C.C. No.206/2008 pertaining to the financial year 2006–07. 7. The trial Court, upon perusal of the complaint, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused. In support of case, the complainant examined 1 witness as PW.1 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. The accused, in his defence, produced and got marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 8. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, in C.C.No.206/2008, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 117, and 117-A of the Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹2,38,788/- for the offence under Section 114 of the Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence under Section 117 of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 Act; and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 117-A of the Act. 9. Likewise, in C.C. No.207/2008, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 117, and 117-A of the Act. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹10,37,700/- for the offence under Section 114 of the Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence under Section 117 of the Act; and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence under Section 117-A of the Act. 10. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.103/2012 arising out of C.C. No.206/2008, and Criminal Appeal No.102/2012 arising out of C.C. No.207/2008. The Appellate Court, upon re- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed both appeals and confirmed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the entire case against the petitioner is founded solely on the Tax Invoice marked as Ex.P-16. He contends that Ex.P-16, by itself, is not sufficient to establish that the alleged offences have been committed. It is submitted that the business of the revision petitioner is conducted at Sirsi; however, as the proprietor resides in Siddapur, the Siddapur address is printed on the said Tax Invoice. The respondent-authorities, merely on the basis of the address mentioned in Ex.P-16, have presumed that the revision petitioner is carrying on business at Siddapur without obtaining the requisite registration to do so in that area. It is further submitted that, apart from Ex.P-16, there is no other document or evidence on record to substantiate the case of the respondent. 11.1 Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner is a registered dealer under the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and that the turnover, including the transaction reflected in Ex.P-16, has been duly disclosed. It is submitted that the transaction evidenced by Ex.P-16 took place within the jurisdiction of the Sirsi APMC. Learned counsel further contends that there is no justifiable basis for the imposition of the fine and other levies as ordered under Section 104 of the APMC Act. It is his submission that the turnover of the revision petitioner, carried out within the APMC, Sirsi, and duly declared for VAT purposes, has been erroneously treated as an evasion of payment of fee or other dues under the APMC Act. He submits that the entire turnover has been wrongly subjected to levy by the APMC, Siddapur. It is contended that the impugned orders are without any legal foundation and have been passed without due application of mind. 12. Per contra, Sri Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that multiple show-cause notices were issued to the revision - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 petitioner calling for an explanation. It is contended that if, as alleged, the petitioner was not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the APMC, Siddapur, there was no impediment for the petitioner to submit a reply raising the contentions now sought to be urged. 12.1 Learned counsel further submits that, in the absence of production of books of accounts, statements, and other relevant details by the revision petitioner, the respondent-authority obtained the turnover particulars from the State Tax Authorities and, based on the said data, quantified the evasion of market fee and other dues. He further submits that these aspects have been duly considered by both the Courts below while holding the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 114 of the APMC Act. 13. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 14. The criminal law was set in motion by the filing of a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by respondent No.1. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegation of fee evasion is founded on the contention that the revision petitioner was carrying on business without obtaining the requisite registration and without payment of the applicable market fee or other charges. The complaint further discloses that the entire turnover of the revision petitioner has been treated as having been suppressed with an intent to evade such payment. Notably, the only document relied upon in support of the said allegation is Ex.P-16. Another ground urged in the complaint is that the revision petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued by the authorities. 15. It is the respondent-authorities who have alleged evasion of market fee and other charges against the revision petitioner. When a complaint is filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the burden lies upon the complainant to establish, by cogent - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 evidence, the commission of the alleged offence. In the present case, the complaint has been instituted solely on the basis of Ex.P-16. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the contention of the revision petitioner is to be disregarded and Ex.P-16 is accepted at its face value, the alleged evasion, at best, can extend only to the transaction recorded therein. Upon specific query, no statutory provision has been pointed out by the respondent-authorities which raises a presumption in favour of the complainant so as to shift the burden onto the revision petitioner. In the absence of any such statutory presumption, the burden squarely rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint. 16. The revision petitioner has contended that the entire business transactions were carried out within the jurisdiction of APMC, Sirsi, and that all such transactions form part of the turnover duly declared before the State Tax Authorities. The respondent had ample opportunity to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 verify the said defence by making necessary inquiries with APMC, Sirsi. Another significant aspect which cannot be overlooked is that the filing of the complaint itself lacks bona fides. When the allegation pertains to a transaction purportedly carried out within the jurisdiction of APMC, Siddapur, and the said transaction admittedly forms part of the declared turnover, it was incumbent upon the respondent-authorities to undertake proper verification before initiating criminal proceedings. If, as claimed by the respondent, the transactions were in fact conducted within the jurisdiction of APMC, Siddapur, then logically, such transactions would not have been included in the turnover declared to the State Tax Authorities under the registration at APMC, Sirsi. In the face of the revision petitioner’s categorical assertion that the entire business was conducted within the jurisdiction of APMC, Sirsi and forms part of the declared turnover, the very turnover disclosed before the State Tax Authorities cannot selectively be relied upon for quantifying the alleged - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 evasion. It is impermissible for the respondent-authorities to adopt a pick-and-choose approach with respect to the declared turnover. Once the turnover as disclosed in the VAT returns is accepted, it necessarily follows that the said turnover pertains to APMC, Sirsi and must be treated accordingly. 17. The case of the respondent also does not withstand judicial scrutiny for the reason that Section 114 of the APMC Act prescribes a penalty which shall be a sum equal to three times the amount of the fee or other amount due, or ₹3,000/-, whichever is higher. However, there is no discernible basis for quantifying the alleged evasion in the present case. 18. The trial Court has placed heavy reliance on Ex.P-16, the Tax Invoice, to arrive at the conclusion that the revision petitioner was carrying on business at Siddapur. However, apart from Ex.P-16, no other evidence has been adduced by the respondent to substantiate this allegation. Even the finding of the trial Court, based on - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 Ex.P-16, is merely inferential, drawn solely from the presence of the Siddapur address printed on the Tax Invoice. 19. Even assuming Ex.P-16 represents the alleged transaction, the authority of the respondent to levy market fee and other charges cannot extend beyond the value reflected in Ex.P-16. Be that as it may, both the trial Court and the appellate Court have committed an error in recording the conviction solely on the basis of Ex.P-16, in the absence of any corroborative evidence. 20. This Court is of the considered view that Ex.P- 16, by itself, is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 117 of the APMC Act. The findings recorded by both the trial Court and the appellate Court are not supported by any cogent evidence on record to establish the alleged offences. The impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and are devoid of any evidentiary foundation. Hence, both the orders are unsustainable in law. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8085 CRL.RP No. 100126 of 2019 C/W CRL.RP No. 100127 of 2019 21. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Both Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed. (ii) The order of conviction dated 28.05.2012 in C.C. Nos.206/2008 and 207/2008 on the file of J.M.F.C., Siddapur and order dated 28.02.2019 in Crl.A.Nos.103/2012 and 102/2012 on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar sitting at Sirsi are hereby set aside. (iii) Accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 114, 117 and 117A of the APMC Act. (iv) Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. (v) The fine amount, if any, shall be refunded to the revision petitioner. (vi) No order as to costs. Registry to return records to the Trial Court. Sd/- (K V ARAVIND) JUDGE Naa CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0