Back
Bombay High Court
R.A.JAHAGIRDAR
Venkatrao Narayanrao Ambekar - Appellant
Versus
Alma Sugar Mills - Respondent
Decided On : 08/10/1978
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING - LICENCE - REQUIREMENT - TRADER - PURCHASER OR SELLER - OPERATION - REPEATED ACTS - PROCESSING - TRANSFORMATION OF COMMODITY - MARKETING - SALE OF KHANDSARI SUGAR - NOT AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963), Ss. 2(1)(t), 46, 6(1)(a), (b), (2).
Fact of the Case:
The accused, the Manager of a Sugar Mills, was charged with the offence punishable under S.6(1)(a) and (b) read with S.46 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963) for operating in the market area as a trader and processor of the declared agricultural produce without a licence. The accused contended that he was not liable to obtain a licence because he had obtained a licence under S.5 of the Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act 1962 (Mah. LVII of 1962). The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that it was not necessary for him to obtain a licence under the Act of 1963 and that the manufacture of sugar from sugarcane does not amount to processing of an agricultural produce.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the accused was guilty of operating as a trader in the market area without a licence, but not as a processor or in relation to the marketing of the declared agricultural produce. The Court held that the accused's purchases of sugarcane were not exempted from the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act of 1963, even if they were made for personal consumption in the sense of consumption in the Mills. The Court further held that the transformation of sugarcane into sugar by several processes amounting to manufacture is not tantamount to processing sugarcane. The Court also held that the sale of Khandsari sugar by the accused did not amount to marketing an agricultural produce, as Khandsari sugar is not included in the definition of 'sugar' in the Act of 1963.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused was required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963) for operating as a trader in the market area? 2. Whether the accused was required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963) for processing sugarcane? 3. Whether the accused was required to obtain a licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963) for marketing Khandsari sugar?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person who buys or sells an agricultural produce is a trader within the meaning of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963). 2. The transformation of sugarcane into sugar by several processes amounting to manufacture is not tantamount to processing sugarcane. 3. The sale of Khandsari sugar does not amount to marketing an agricultural produce, as Khandsari sugar is not included in the definition of 'sugar' in the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963).
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The accused was held guilty of the offence punishable under S.46 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Mah. XXII of 1963) for operating as a trader within the market area of Aurangabad Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee without a licence issued under S.6. The accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-.
2. In the trial court the defence of the accused was that he was not liable to obtain any licence because under S.5 of Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1962 a licence has been obtained by him. The learned trial Magistrate accepted this defence and held that it was not necessary for the accused to obtain a licence under the Act of 1964. The learned trial Magistrate also found that the manufacture of sugar from the raw material of sugarcane does not amount to processing of an agricultural produce which is sugarcane. He also held that the marketing of sugar by the accused at the factory premises does not amount to using any place in the marketing area for trading in sugar though the sugar is agricultural produce. In view of these findings the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offence with which he was charged. The order of acquittal is of 25th Feb. 1976 and is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
3. The contention that the licence obtained under S.5 of the Act of 1962 dispenses with the necessity of obtaining licence under S.6 of the Act of 1964 is too absurd to be accepted and happily has not been repeated here. The two Acts deal with two different subjects and operate in altogether different fields.
4. Mr. Kapse, the learned Advocate appearing for the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee has criticised the judgement of the learned trial Magistrate by contending that he has misdirected himself on several important provisions of law. Mr. Kapse pointed out that large quantities of sugarcane are admittedly being purchased by the accused and if one reads the definition of 'trader' contained in S.2(1)(t) of the Act of 1964 it is clear that the accused is a trader in an agricultural produce. The Schedule to the Act of 1964 mentions Gul, Sugar and Sugarcane as the items of agricultural produce and that sugar and sugarcane are agricultural produce, therefore, cannot for a moment be disputed. Mr. Malik, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, however, pointed out that the accused purchases sugarcane but does not sell it. In other
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
