CHIMANLAL PREMCHAND versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 15-09-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
r959 
was a graver offence; sometimes involving the security 
of the State, and so an amendment was introduced in 
J ethanand Bet ab 
v. 
1949 constituting the possession of such apparatus a 
The State of Delhi graver offence and imposing a more severe punish-
ment. 
Therefore, it cannot be said that s. 6(1-A), 
Subba Rao l· inserted in the Act XVII of 1933 by the amending 
Act of 1949, is either covered py the provisions of the 
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or a surplusage not 
serving any definite purpose. Even from the history 
of the legislation we find it not possible to say that it 
disclosed an intention different from th11t envisaged in 
r959 
September r5. 
s. 6-A of the General Clauses Act. 
For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that s. 6 (1-A) of 
the Act continued to be on the statute book even after 
the amending Act of 1949 was repealed by Act XL VIII 
of 1952, and that it was in force when the offence was 
committed by the appellant. 
The appeal fails and is diSmissed. 
CHIMANLAL PREMCHAND 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(SYED JAFER IMAM and K. SuBBA RAO, JJ.) 
Agricultural produce-Packed or pressed-If loses identity-
State Government-Powers to make rule for regulation of business 
and condition of trading-Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Act, 
I939 (Bom. 22 of z939), ss. 2 and 26-Bombay Agricultural Produce 
Market Rules r94r, r. 65. 
The appellant as a trader made purchases of full pressed 
cotton bales in the market area of Broach without requisite 
licence from the market committee. thereby contravening the 
provisions of r. 65(1) of the Bombay Agricnltural Produce Market 
Rule 194i. The appellant, inter alia;. contended that the Act and 
Rules passed thereunder did not apply to pressed cotton which 
having been pressed into bales had lost its identity and was no 
more an agricultural produce and that r. 65 was ultra vires inas-
much as its provisions were in excess of the rule making power 
of the State Government. 
Held, that an agricultural produce by being packed in 
containers or pressed into bales does not in any way change its 
essential character, and continues to be an agricultural produce, 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
765 
The fact that the cotton ginned or unginned is pressed into bales, 
or packed otherwise does not make it any less the cotton and is 
an agricultural produce as defined under s. 2 of the Bombay 
Agricultural Market Act, 1939. 
Under s. 26 of the Act, the State Government has ample 
powers to make rules for the regulation of business and conditions 
of trading in the market and sub-s. (1) of the said s. 26 confers 
power on the State Government to maker. 65. 
CRIMINAL 
Al.>PELI,ATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 200 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the September 11, 1956, of the Bombay 
High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 1956, 
arising out of the judgment and order dated Decem-
ber 31, 1955, of the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and 
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Broach, in Criminal 
Case No. 605of1953. 
Purshottam Tricumdas, J.B. Druku,hanji, S. N. Andley 
and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants. 
H.J. Umrigar and R.H. Dhebar, for the respond-
ent. 
1959. September 15. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
I959 
Chimanlal 
Ptemchanil 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
SuBBA RAO J.-This is an. appeal by special leave 
Subba Rao J. 
against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay setting aside that of the :First Class Magist-
rate, Broach, and convicting the appellant for contra-
vening the provisions of r. 65 (1) of the Bombay 
Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1941, hereinafter 
called the Rules, and imposing on him a fine of Rs. 25. 
The appellant was a trader carrying on business in 
cotton at Broach. On February 7 and 9, 1953, he 
purchased full pressed cotton bales from M/s. Ratanji 
Faramji & Sons in two instalments of 200 bales each 
through a licensed broker, Dahyabhai Acharatlal. 
Re also purchased 100 bales from Halday Multi-Pur-
pose Co-operative Society. All these purchases were 
made by the appellant as a trader in the market area 
of Broach without the requisite licence from the 
Market Committee. He was charged in the Court of 
97 
'959 
Chimanlal 
Premehand 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
Subba Rao]. 
766 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19150(1)] 
the Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial 
Magistrate, :First Class, Broach, for committing the 
breach of r. 65 (1) o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.