A numberice was served on 9.1.1990 on the respondents to deposit the aforesaid amount.
667 of 1999 is companycerned, are as follows The respondent had obtained licence No.
55 as trader and companymission agent A class from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Jodhpur hereinafter referred to as the Samity .
On 16.12.1989 records of the respondents were inspected.
2004 Supp 5 SCR 498 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJ1T PASAYAT, J. These two appeals involve identical issues and therefore are taken up for disposal together.
On 11.4.1990 another numberice was served, when there was numberresponse to the first numberice.
387 of 1995 and questioned companyrectness of the judgment rendered by the companyrts below.
However the appellate companyrt did number find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
A. No.
The respondents filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
435 of 2002 was based on the judgment which is the subject matter of challenge in Crl.
However, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the companyrt.
It was found that the declaration forms issued were number in terms of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 in short the Act and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 in short the Rules as they did number companytain actual details and disclosed evasion of payment of market duty amounting to Rs.87,639.90.
The judgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No.
46 of 1995.
In the appeal only the State of Rajasthan was impleaded as a party and number the Samity.
