1975 (8) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued u/s 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964.
2. Mandatory vs. Directory nature of the publication requirement in Gujarati in a newspaper.
3. Compliance with Rule 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965.
4. Conduct of the prosecution and the approach of the lower courts.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notification Issued u/s 6(5):
The appellant was convicted by the Gujarat High Court u/s 36 read with section 8 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, for purchasing ginger without a license. The Supreme Court examined whether the notification issued u/s 6(5) of the Act, which included ginger as an agricultural produce, was valid. The Court found that the notification was not published in Gujarati in a newspaper as required by section 6(1) of the Act, rendering it legally invalid. Consequently, no prosecution could be founded upon its breach.

2. Mandatory vs. Directory Nature of the Publication Requirement:
The Court analyzed whether the requirement for publication in Gujarati in a newspaper, as stated in section 6(1), was mandatory or directory. The Court concluded that the word "shall" in section 6(1) must be construed as mandatory. The legislative intent, as evidenced by the scheme of the Act and its legislative history, indicated that the additional mode of publication was essential for ensuring adequate public awareness and participation. Therefore, the notification must be published in Gujarati in a newspaper to be valid.

3. Compliance with Rule 3:
Rule 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, requires that notifications issued u/s 5(1) or 6(1) be published by affixing a copy at conspicuous places in local authority offices. Although the case concerned a notification issued u/s 6(5), the Court noted that compliance with Rule 3 is also necessary for notifications issued u/s 5(1) and 6(1). However, since the notification in question was issued u/s 6(5), Rule 3 was not directly applicable.

4. Conduct of the Prosecution and Lower Courts:
The Court criticized the indifferent manner in which the prosecution was conducted before the learned Magistrate and the summary approach adopted in the trial. The High Court's judgment was based on a wrong assumption regarding the notification and failed to consider the specific provisions of the Gujarat Act. The High Court erroneously relied on a previous judgment related to the Bombay Act, which had different statutory requirements.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Gujarat High Court and restored the acquittal by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The appeal was allowed.