V.B. Raju, J.
1. These appeals one by the State and one by the original complainant arise out of the prosecution of one Harjivandas Dalichand Shah under Rule 65(1) read with Rule 65(7) of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1941 He was acquitted on the ground that the complainant was appointed by the Markets Act 1939. The contention in existence on the date. The relevant sections are Sections 6(3) 6 and 6 of Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939. The contention that as the new committee was constituted the old committee continued to function by virtue of Section 6(3A) of the said Act was repelled by the learned Magistrate. I think that there is a good deal to be said for this argument It is only when a new committee is constituted that the old committee would be deemed to be continued under Section 6(3A) of the said Act. The words the date of the first general meeting of the market committee constituted in its place mentioned in Section 6(3A) of the said Act are very important. That would show that there must be a new committee and if there is such a committee the old committee would continue till the date of the first general meeting of the second committee. In this case admittedly there is no new committee and therefore the old committee would not be deemed to be continued under Section 6(3A) of the said Act. Regarding Sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the said Act the contention that there is a defect in the constitution of the committee was also repelled by the learned Magistrate. A defect in the constitution of the committee can exist only when the committee as a whole exists. When the committee itself is not constituted there cannot be any defect in the constitution of the committee. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is correct and I am not prepared to set aside the acquittal.
2. The appeal is dismissed.