MAHARAJA BOOK DEPOT versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 24-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
138 
MAHARAJA BOOK DEPOT 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
October 24, 1978 
rv. D. TULZAPTJRKAR AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Essential Commoditi.s Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) Section 3(a)(vii) and 
the Gujarat Essential Articles Dealer (Regulation) Order 1971-Schedule I, 
Iteln. 13- Term "Paper"-Whether includes "exercise-books''. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Rule of strict construction or narrow construction 
C 
in favour of the subject, to be llpplied only lvhen there is some equivocation 
or ambiguity about a word or provision. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The term "paper" is described as "paper", including newsprint, paper-board 
and strawboard" in s. 2(a) (vii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as 
well as in Item 13 in Schedule I to the Gujarat Essenti~l Articles 
Dealers 
(Regulation) Order 1971. 
By a notification dated July 10, 1975, the Schedule 
I of the Regulation Order was recast and more items were added. 
Item No. 
13 of the Regulation Order after it was recast by the amendment of 1975 and 
renumbered tis S. No. 14 read as follows :-
"14. Paper including newsprint, paper, 11trawboard 
and 
exercise 
note-books." 
The appellant is a firm dealing in books and stationery articles. 
On a 
surprise inspection and search of the appellant's shop it was found that in regard 
to exercise books the appellant committed breach of the Regulation Order, in 
that he did not display the stock thereof that he did not write the names of 
customers on the bills issued to them and that he Clid not maintain the stock 
registers properly and thereof a sizable quantity of exercise books were 
seized. 
The Collector fouud that the appellant was guilty of breach of the Regula-
tion Order and directed that the seized stocks of exercise books be confiscated 
under s. 6A of the Act. 
Jn appeal. the Sessions Judge set aside the Collector's order on the ground 
that exercise books did not fall \Vithin the item "paper" as envisaged in the 
Act and the Regulation Order. 
In proceedings under Art. 227, the High Court took the view that the term 
"paper" was wide enough to 'cover exercise books, which was nothing but a 
collection of papers, stitched together by a piece of string or pinned with pins 
of stappler, aHd quashed the order of the Sessiom Judge. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court. : 
HELD : ( 1) On a true and proper construction, within its normal dictionary 
meaning the item "paper" as described in s. 2(a) (vii) of the Act and Item 
13 in Schedule I to the Regulation Order covers an exercise book. 
Such a 
construction would be in consonance with and carry out effectively the object 
or purpou of the Act and the Regulation Order. [144H-145A] 
• 
• 
f . 
• • 
• 
• • 
MAHARAJA BOOK DEPOT v. GUJARAT (Tulzapurkar, J.) 
139 
Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edu. 1968); Webster's New 
A 
World Dii:tionary (1962 Ecln.); Concise Oxford Dictionary, referred 
to. 
(2) Though s. 2(a) of the Act and cl. 2(v) of the Regulation Order 
purport to define 'essential article' that expression has no mooning of its own 
and what follows is an enumeration of articles regarded as essential for the 
purposes of the Act and the Order. [143 Fl 
(3) An inclusive description has been given to the item "paper'' in the Act 
and the Regulation Order, but the inclusive part refers to things that may 
not ordinarily be regarded as paper and, therefore, an extended meaning or 
description is given to the expression "paper". Since an exercise-book (which 
is nothing but a collection of sheets of paper intended to be used for writing), 
squarely falls within the dictionary meaning of the 'W'Ord "paper" there was no 
necessity to m.ention it in the inclusive part of the description. [144 F-H] 
( 4) The a1nendment and enlargement of the item "paper" so as to include 
specifically exercise-books was made ex 1najore cautela to make things abun-
dantJ.y clear and, therefore, . no inference as regards the iBitial legislative 
intent that it '.Vas to exclude exercise-books from the expression "paper" under 
Item 13 in Schedule I to the 
said order as it originally stood can be 
drawn. 
[145 DJ 
(5) It is only when there is some equivocation or ambiguity about a word 
or provision in a penal statute that the rule of strict or narrow construction 
in favour of 1he subject is to be applied but if there is no ambiguity and the 
act or omission falls clearly within the mischief of the statute then the con-
struction of a penal statute will not differ from that of any other. 

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