STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. HANSRAJ DEPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four appeals arise out of four eases which were disposed of by a common judgment by the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazagaon as they involved common questions of facts and law relating to Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that the four accused, who are owning different shops, failed to notify or mark prices or to put up a board showing the prices of Vanaspati which they had kept for sale in their grocery shops. The defence of the accused was that they were selling hydrogenated oil and not Vanaspati. The learned Magistrate in all the four cases acquitted the accused giving them the benefit of doubt, observing: I may also point out that when, the Government fixed the price of hydrogenated oil by its notification No. SO 4203 dated 22nd November 1968 published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 7 -12 -1968 on page 224 part IV -K, the word used is 'vegetable oil items' and not 'Vanaspati'. This is the Order which fixed the prices of Dalda and other vegetable oils. The notification is signed by the Vegetable Oil Products Controller for India. Similarly another notification was issued on 5th of June 1969 published at page 100 of the Maharashtra Government Gazette, part IV -K of the said date. I do not find the word 'Vanaspati' in this notification. Mr. Parekh has produced before me a number of notifications issued from time to time in this respect and everywhere the word used is vegetable oil products and the authority is the Vegetable Oil Products Controller. Further, I may point out that if vegetable oils were to be separated into two ports such as hydrogenated oil and other vegetable oils that would have been made clear in the said order. For example in the order in this ease Item No. 5 is, ground nut oil, mustard oil, sesum oil etc., and Item No. 6 is coconut oil. All these are edible oils. On behalf of the accused it is further submitted that the word 'Vanaspati' is not to be found in any standard dictionary. The learned P. P. has conceded that he had referred to the Oxford dictionary and also to the Webster International Dictionary but the word 'Vanaspati' is not to be found in those dictionaries. It may be that in the vernacular language the word 'Vanaspati' may be having o certain local meaning. But even in Indian languages Vanaspati by itself does not mean hydrogenated oil. The notification is in the English language and when a word like Vanaspati was used the authorities should have made it clear by adding this hydrogenated oil if they intended to cover Vanaspati to mean Vanaspati hydrogenated oil. I think there is considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of the accused. The accused cannot be expected to know that when they were selling hydrogenated oil, they were bound to disclose the prices of the same when 'hydrogenated oil' is not mentioned in the Government Notification.

(3.) THE prosecution was instituted by a charge -sheet filed by the police on January 3, 1969 alleging that the accused failed to display the price list of Vanaspati board in the respective shops and thereby contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966, which was punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Now, Section 7(1) punishes 'contravention' of an order. There can be no doubt that failure to display the board stating the price at which Vanaspati was sold would amount to a failure to comply with Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Articles (Display and Marking of Prices) Order, 1966, as items Nos. 15 and 16 cover Vanaspati. But the question is whether not complying with Clause 3 would amount to 'contravention' within the meaning of Section 7.