SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(SC) 1035

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.M.Kasliwal : Yogeshwar Dayal
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Versus
Shankar Industries
Case No. : 3 111-16 of 1991
Date of Decision : 2/11/93
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala E.C. : Chhabra Rani : Jain R.K. : Kak Purnima Bhatt : Mishra Pradeep : Palli Anant : Palli Rekha : Rohatgi K.B. : Rohtagi Avadh Behari : Rohtagi K.B. : Sharma Atul : Sharma Bharati : Vaidyanathan C.S.

Advocates:
ANANT PALLI, Atul Sharma, AVADH BIHARI ROHTAGI, BHARTI SHARMA, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, E.C.AGARWAL, K.B.ROHTAGI, PRADIP MISHRA, PURNIMA BHATT KAK, R.K.JAIN, RANI CHHABRA, REKHA PALLI

Headnote:

U.P. Kristi Utahan Mandy Adhiniyam of 1964 - SECTION 2 - Bank - Agricultural produce in the Act – Jurisdiction – Trial court - IT may be mentioned that the words were added in the above definition of agricultural produce by - Decide the controversy raised in these cases the definition of agricultural produce has to be taken into consideration after the words added by the aforesaid U.P. Act - Sugarcane is an agricultural produce out of which juice is extracted - Said juice gets thickened by dehydration and when it reaches a particular pigment, it takes form of which is a semi-solid form of the sugarcane juice - After the process of boiling this is put in a crystallizer where it is allowed to get cooled and crystals are formed when the same is rotated in the crystallizer – Held, Legislature has in terms encompassed within the definition of Section 2(a) of Act. And the term is sufficiently wide to cover all varieties of including the article produced by the factories like those of the petitioners - Besides basic premise assumed by the petitioners that the object of the Act is merely to protect the producers from exploitation is fallacious. Of course, one of the main objects of the Act is to protect the producers from being cheated by unscrupulous traders in the matter of price, weight, payment, unlawful market charges, etc. and to render them immune from exploitation as indicated by the prefatory note and by the provisions contained in - While this is one of the objects of the Act, it is not the sole or only object of the Act. The Act has many more objects and a much wider perspective such as development of new market areas, efficient collection of data, and processing of arrivals in Mandis with a view to enable World Bank to give substantial economic assistance to establish various markets in Uttar Pradesh, as also protection of consumers and even traders from being exploited in the matter of quality, weight and price - State of Rajasthan it was held as under - Definition of the word agricultural produce in the Act ... includes all produce whether agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry or otherwise as specified in the Schedule - Legislative power to add or include and define a word even artificially, apart, the definition which is not exhaustive but inclusive neither excludes any item produced in mill or factories nor it confines its width to produce from soil - Nor switch over from indigenous method of producing anything to scientific or mechanical method changes its character - To say, therefore, that sugar being produced in mill or factories could not be deemed to be agricultural produce is both against the statutory language and judicial interpretation of similar provisions of the Act in statutes of other – Petition dismissed

Judgment

KASLIWAL, J-

(1) COMPUTER Code No. 12964 of 1991 [In Special Leave Petition (C) No. --- of 1991] Delinked. See separate order in the concerned file.

(2) SPECIAL leave granted in all the other petitions.

(3) IN all the above appeals the short controversy raised is whether gurlauta and raskat and rab-galawat and rab-salawat are liable to the levy of market fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(4) A division bench of the Allahabad High court referred the question for being considered by a full bench. The full bench of the High court by decision dated 2/04/1990 held that gur-lauta and raskat and rab-galawat and salawat were not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act. Subsequently other benches followed the aforesaid decision of the full bench. All the above appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment of the full bench dated 2/04/1990 as well as the subsequent decisions following the full bench case.

(5) SECTION 2(a) of the Act defines agricultural produce and reads as under:

"2. (a) agricultural produce means such items of produce of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes admixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery."

(6) IT may be mentioned that the words gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery were added in the above definition of agricultural produce by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1970. To decide the controversy raised in these cases the definition of agricultural produce has to be taken into consideration after the words added by the aforesaid U.P. Act No. 10 of 1970. Sugarcane is an agricultural produce out of which juice is extracted. The said juice gets thickened by dehydration and when it reaches a particular pigment, it takes the form of rab which is a semi-solid form of the sugarcane juice. After the process of boiling this rab is put in a crystalliser where it is allowed to get cooled and crystals are formed when the same is rotated in the crystalliser. The crystallised rab is then put into centrifugal machines in which through the process of infusion of sulphur, the sugarcane juice is cleaned and whitened.

(7) THE rab which is not put into the centrifugal machine but is dehydrated and is allowed to be hardened by the open pan process takes the shape of gur which is normally used for home consumption.

(8) THE rab which is not allowed to be hardened is also sold in semi-solid form but those persons who desire to make further profits put the rab into centrifugal machines and by the process of infusion of sulphur they obtain khandsari in the dry powder/crystallised form and the waste of rab which is obtained in the liquid form is known as molasses.

(9) THE residue which is known as molasses is further utilised by many people by boiling in the open pans and the same is again re-processed by cleaning and dehydrating and later by sulphitation is taken in powder form. This first process out of molasses of rab in the semi-solid form is also sold in the market because this inferior quality contains less content of sucrose and is called rab-galawat. Rab-salawat is also prepared by the same process out of the molasses and is further inferior quality of rab. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that rab-galawat and rabsalawat are thus nothing but different forms of rab although a little and/or more inferior in quality. It has been contended that the main ingredient being sugarcane out of which juice is extracted and when gur, rab, khandsari and shakkar have been added in the definition of agricultural produce, the rab-galawat or rab-salawat being the inferior forms of rab are necessarily an agricultural produce within the a











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top