1978 (10) TMI 148 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether exercise books are covered by the item paper occurring in s. 2(a) (vii) of that Act as also in Entry 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers (Regulation) order, 1971 ? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The Item paper in s.2 (a) (vii) in the Act has all along remained the same without any modification, alteration or enlargement and it is only the item No. 13 in the Schedule to the Regulation order (a subordinate piece of legislation) that has undergone a change and the item has been amended so as to include specifically exercise- notebooks . We have no doubt in our minds that the said amendment to the item paper is declaratory or clarificatory in nature. The High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the exercise-books of the appellant-firm that were seized were liable to confiscation and the remand order made by the High Court was proper.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether exercise books are covered by the item "paper" under Section 2(a)(vii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Entry 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers' (Regulation) Order, 1971.
2. Whether the confiscation of the entire seized stock of exercise books was justified under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Coverage of Exercise Books under "Paper":

The primary issue was whether exercise books fall within the definition of "paper" as described in Section 2(a)(vii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Entry 13 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealers' (Regulation) Order, 1971. The appellant argued that the term "paper" should be construed narrowly to mean only sheets of paper and not exercise books, which are distinct commodities. The appellant further contended that the inclusion of exercise books in the Regulation Order by a subsequent notification (dated July 10, 1975) indicated that they were initially excluded from the definition of "paper."

The Court examined the dictionary definitions of "paper" and concluded that an exercise book, being a collection of sheets of paper stitched or pinned together, falls within the ordinary meaning of "paper." The Court held that the inclusive description of "paper" in the Act and Regulation Order was intended to extend the meaning to items that might not ordinarily be considered paper, such as newsprint, paperboard, and strawboard. Since exercise books clearly fall within the dictionary meaning of "paper," there was no need to mention them explicitly in the inclusive part of the description.

The Court also noted that the amendment to include exercise books in the Regulation Order was made ex majore cautela (out of abundant caution) to clarify any ambiguity and did not indicate an initial legislative intent to exclude them.

2. Justification of Confiscation under Section 6A:

The appellant challenged the confiscation of the entire seized stock of exercise books, arguing that the provisions of the Act and Regulation Order were penal in nature and should be construed narrowly in favor of the appellant. The Court referred to the principle of strict construction of penal statutes, which applies only when there is ambiguity or equivocation in the language of the statute. Since the term "paper" was clear and unambiguous, the rule of strict construction did not apply.

The Court distinguished the present case from the decision in State of Bihar v. Bhagirath Sharma, where the item "component parts and accessories of automobiles" was held not to include motor tyres and tubes due to specific drafting precedents. In the present case, there were no such drafting precedents, and the item "paper" in the Act had remained unchanged. The Court concluded that the amendment to include exercise books was clarificatory and did not alter the original scope of the term "paper."

The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the exercise books were liable to confiscation under Section 6A of the Act. The High Court's remand order to the Sessions Judge for determining whether the entire stock or part thereof should be confiscated was deemed proper.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was affirmed. The Court held that exercise books fall within the definition of "paper" under the relevant provisions, and the confiscation of the seized stock was justified.