Judgment

HEGDE J.:- This appeal against the decision of the High Court of Patna in Criminal W. J. C. No. 11 of 1966 was brought after obtaining special leave from this Court. The principal question raised herein is whether the investigation which is being carried on against the appellants under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Sugar-cane (Control) Order, 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Order) read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is in accordance with law.

2. The appellants are office bearers of M/s. S. K. G. Sugar Ltd. (Lauriya). A complaint has been registered against them under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Order read with S. 7 of the Act on the ground that they have failed to pay to the sellers the price of the sugar-cane purchased by them, within the time prescribed. The said complaint is being investigated. The appellants are objecting to that investigation on various grounds. They unsuccessfully sought the intervention of the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the Constitution in Cr. W. J. C. No. 11 of 1966. Hence this appeal.

3. Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar appearing for the appellants challenged the validity of the investigation in question on various grounds. We shall now proceed to deal with each one of those grounds.

4. The 1st contention of Mr. Iyengar was that sub-r. (3) of R. 3. could not have been validly issued under S. 3 of the Act. According to him the said Section 3 cannot be used for controlling the payment of the price of food crops; it can only deal with foods-stuffs; food crops are outside its scope. This contention has been negative by the High Court. We agree with the High Court that there is no merit in this contention. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines "essential commodity". Sub-clause (v) of that clause brings food-stuffs within the definition of essential commodity. Clause (b) of Section 2 provides that food crops include sugar-cane. The next important provisions in the Act are clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3 (1). Section 3 (1) provides that if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Sub-section (2) of that section says that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) an order made thereunder may provide. ...........

(b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land, whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-crops generally or of specified food crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food crops generally, or of specified food crops."

Clause (c) provides for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. From the scheme of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 2 and Section 3 of the Act, it is clear that the Parliament intended to bring under control the cultivation and sale for food crops. In view of these provisions it is idle to contend that sugar-cane does not come within the ambit of the Act. The question whether the cultivation and sale of sugar-cane can be regulated under Section 3 of the Act came up for the consideration of this Court in Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of U. P., 1956 SCR 393 At pages 432 and 433 (of SCR) of the report it is observed:

"Act X of 1955 included within the definition of essential commodity foodstuffs which we have seen above would include sugar as well as sugar-cane. This Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of the concurrent legislative power under Entry 33 of List III as amended by the Constitution Third Amendment Act, 1954. Food crops were there defined as including crops of sugar-cane and Section 3 (1) gave the Central Government powers to control the productio