MAITRA RAHAMAN & ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised on behalf of the accused -petitioners in this Criminal Revision in whether or not a Husking -Mill is also a -Rice -Mill within the meaning of the' provisions of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. An affirmative answer would result in affirmation of the impugned order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate and confirmed by the Appellate Court, while a negative answer would warrant reversal thereof. It has been contended that there are basic difference between a Rice -Mill and a Rice -Husking Mill in that while a Rice -Mill, as popularly understand, involves the process of boiling and then drying, and then de -husking the paddy for conversion to rice, a Rice -Husking -Mill only de -husks the paddy brought to it after boiling and drying. It has been further contended that a Rice -Mill proper mills rice of its own and sells them, while Rice -Husking Mill only dehusks the paddy of others on payment of husking charges. It has accordingly been urged on behalf of the accused -petitioners that the offending Mill was admittedly found only to be a Husking -Mill "and also was not found to be de -husking paddy of its own, and therefore the same could not and did not come within the operation of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act of 1958 to sustain any prosecution thereunder. We are afraid that in this case we are not concerned with as to what the expression "Rice -Mill" or "Husking -Mill" means lexically, etymologically or in common parlance, since we find that the concerned Legislation of 1958, under which the prosecution has been launched, has indicated with appreviable clarity as to whether a Rice -Husking -Mili simpliciter would also be a Rice -Mill under Act and we have decided to return an affirmative answer.

(2.) "Rice -Mill" has been defined under Sec. 3(i) of the Act as "the plant and machinery with which, and the premises including the precincts - thereof, in which or in any part of which, rice -milling operation is carried on". So, any premises or its precincts, where there is any machinery with which rice -milling operation is carried on, is a Rice -Mill for the purpose of the Act.. "Milling -Rice" has been defined under Sec. 3(d) as "recovering rice or any product thereof from paddy, polishing rice with the aid of power" and "polishing" has been defined under Sec. 3(gg) as "removal of bran from the kernel of rice ". So any premises where paddy is de -husked with machines and rice is recovered therefrom or brans are removed from the kernel of the rice with the aid of power, would be a Rice -Mill for the purpose of the Act, as defined in Clauses (d), (fcg) and (i) of Section' 3 thereof. If, as has not been disputed, these were found to have been in the premises of the accused, then it must be regarded to be a Rice -Mill for the purpose of the Act, even though in ordinary or common parlance it might be termed as a "Husking -Mill" only, as the other operations usually associated, with Rice Mills, as popularly understood, like boiling and drying of paddy etc., are not done there.

(3.) Under Sec. 3A as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1968, the provisions of the Act have been made applicable even to Rice -Hullers also, even if those are attached to or maintained with other Mills. If Rice -Hullers, whereby the husks or outer coverings of rice are removed and rice is recovered from paddy, are to be treated as Rice Mills, even it those are attached to and found part of some other mills, then it is difficult to understand as to why Husking Mills would cease to be so treated simply because of a different popular nomenclature usually attached to them. ' As would be evident from the Statements of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill for the Amendment Act of 1968, the very purpose of introducing Sec. 3A by that Amendment Act was to rope in the Rice -Hullers also "scattered all over the country -side far away from important markets" which "some times operate clandestinely at night" "without obtaining requisite permission or licence under the Act" "making it difficult to check their activities". We have, therefore, no doubt that a Husking -Mill, where paddy is husked and kernel of the rice is recover by removing the husk or hull or bran, is a Rice -Mill within the meaning of the Rice -Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 and that this will emerge with irresistible clarity from a scrutiny of the provisions of Clauses (d), (gg) and (i) of Sec. 3 of the Act, even without the aid of the provisions of Sec. 3A, inserted in 1968. All that Sec. 3A has purported to make clear is that a Rice -Husking machine or a Rice -Hulier would nevertheless be regarded as a Rice -Mill for the purpose of the Act, even if the same is attached to, maintained by or forms part of any other Mill like a Flour, Oil or Dal Mill. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, however, in Chandrakanta Saha (AIR 1979 SC 314 at 319) has ruled that Clauses (d) and (gg) Were good enough to rope in the Rice -Hullers within this Act and that Sec. 3A was inserted ex abundant cautela. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has also ruled further that the two sub -clauses in Clause (d) of Sec. 3 defining "Milling -Rice" as -