KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT! AND ANR. ETC. versus SHANKAR INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 11-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT! AND ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SHANKAR INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ETC 
FEBRUARY 11, 1993 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 : 
Section 2(a) 'Agricultural produce'-Levy of market fee-Gur lauta, 
~-
raskat, rob galawat, rab salawat-fleld exigible to market fee. 
Section 2 (a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 
defined 'agricultnral produce'. The words 'gur, rab, shakkar, Khandasari 
andjaggery', were added in the said definition by U.P. Act No.10of1970. 
B 
c 
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court referred the question D 
whether gur-lauta and raskat and rab-salawat are liable to the levy of 
)r market fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 to a 
Full Bench. The Full Bench held that gur-lauta and raskat and rab-
galawat and salawat were not an 'agrcultural produce' within the menaing 
of the Act, and other Benches followed the Full Bench. 
E 
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
·y appellants that when gur, 1I . khandsari and shakkar have been added in 
the definition of 'agricultural produce' rah- galawat or rab-salawat being 
the inferior forms of the rab are necessary .an agriculatural produced 
within the definition of agricultural produce. On behalf of the respondents 
it was contended that the Full Bench was right in taking the view that F 
molasses are a different product which looses its original character and 
being a residual article after solidification of the natural article i.e., 
~sugarcane juice, it cannot be said to be an agritultural prQd,uce, that 
molasses itself being not an agriculetural produce, gur lauta a_nd raskat 
prepared from molasses cannot be held to be an agricultural produce. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD : 1. A persual of the definition of 'agricult!lral produce' under 
> Section 2 (a) of the Act shows that apart from items of produce of 
agric.ultre, horitculture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, H 
1037 
1038 
SUPREME CQURT REPORTS 
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, the definition 
further 'includes admixture of two or more such items' and thereafter it 
further 'includes taking any .such item in processed from' and again for 
the third time the words used are 'and further includes gur, rab, shak..'<ar, 
khandsari and jaggecy'. [1041C) . 
B 
2. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that where the legislature 
used the words· tmeans' and 'includes' suctt definition is to be given a wider 
meaning and is not exhaustive or restricted to the items contained or 
included in such definition. [1041D) 
~ 
C 
3. The meaning of 'agricultural produce' in the above definition is 
not restricted to any products of agriculture as specified in the Schedule 
but also includes such ifellJS which come into being in processed form and 
further includes such items which are called as gur, rah, shakkar, 
khandsari and jaggery. [1041E] · 
D 
4. Gur·lauta or raskat and rab-salawat made from sugarcane or 
E 
from molasses shall fall within the definition of 'agricultural produce' l\5 
contained in Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi 
Adhiniyam, and are exigible to market fee. The view taken by the Full 
Bench of the High Court is not correct. [1042C, 1043D] 
Rathi Khandsari Udyogetc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc., [1985] 2 S.C.R. y 
966; Kishan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 142; 
and Bharat Trading v. State of U.P. & Ors., WP (C) No. 9982 decided on 
-
31st March, 1992, referred to. 
-
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3111-16 
G 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.90 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 5627, 6163/88, 1193, 8415, 10360/89 and 1076 of 1990. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 580 to 606 of 1993 & 4416 of 1991 
E.C. Agrawala, Anant V. Palli, Atual Sharma, Mrs. Purnima Bhat 
H .Kak, Mrs. Rckha Palli and Pradcep Misra for the Appellants. 
-
-
KRJSHI UTPADAN SAMITI v. SHANKAR IND. [KASL!WAL, J.] 1039 
C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.K. Jain, Ms. Bharti Sharma, Mrs. Rani A.· 
)\" 
Chhabra, KB. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of he Court was delivered by 
KASLIWAL, J. Computer Code No. 12964 of 1991. 
B 
·(In S.L.P. (C) No. ___ of 1991) 
Delinked. See separate Order in the concerned file. Special Leave 
granted in all the other petitions. In all the above appeals the short 
controversy r

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